Heaven and Hell Records joins SOPA blackout

[nailz]

..game licences... The value of the game isn't the box or the disc (I mean yeah there's SENTIMENTAL value to that, but the disc and the box are not worth 60 bucks). The value of the game is the GAME, which is intellectual property and cost millions of dollars and staff to create.

That's nice. I still purchased a product. If it's not the conduit (the game disk or the download) that I can transfer, it's the license. Steam does not allow for game trading, probably for this very reason, which, frankly, I think is stupid as fuck, but it's certainly a good way to stop selling used product by the masses. Also, I wasn't really talking about gamestop, but if that's how a company is going to make money, fine. More power to them.

We can quibble and bitch about how a game is sold to a consumer until the end of time. The end result is going to be the same. People buy something, they expect to have ownership of that thing. When it comes to Console games, if you take away the consumers right to sell their games once they own them you're going to have an influx of people who end up downloading it illegally if they want to play it bad enough, or just ignoring it all together, because you're taking the (right or not) ability to control their owned property. Either way, you're going to lose a ton of sales.

Look at what happened and the backlash Microsoft got when it started allowing Windows to recognize Computer Hardware with Vista. What a disaster that was. Yep, they sure showed those software pirates with THAT...

If you can't figure out that the loss of content creators = the loss of art... well, you've missed the entire basis of this thread.

No, see, the entire basis of the current argument is that Content Creators are getting super shafted by corporate mediators who are in charge of marketing their products. Content Creators aren't creating content for release to the public anymore. They're doing it for corporations to whore out products and turn cash cows. That's what the system has become. Taking art and maximizing it's profit, morals be damned. For a perfect example of how this could be rectified in the gaming industry, one has to look no further than Minecraft. Here's a simple, low key game that has made one man literally millions of dollars, and that was while the game was in beta. Fuck, Notch TELLS people to pirate a copy when they're broke and just buy it when they can afford it. Here's a guy that gets it.

So, no. I think what needs to happen in the gaming industry is there needs to be a return to good game play. There needs to be a way to cut costs without hacking off the creators of the graphics, or the software engineers. Games have been a major problem in "cost-to-create to profit-margin" for a very, very long time. If a game doesn't sell well in the first 3 weeks, it's almost certainly a flop. Again, we see a market that's simply over-saturated with product that costs too much money and is too time-intensive to promote external sales. Yes, it's an amazing deal to pick up Skyrim for $60 because you get literally 150 hours of game play. Shit, that's less than $.50c an hour of entertainment. That's fucking phenominal. But when you're faced with competition of Arkham City, Modern Warfare, Skyrim, Assassin's Creed etc over 2 months and then the next "big things" coming only 3 months down the line, you can't expect people to shell out like that.

I still maintain in gaming that the problem isn't that games cost too much, it's that there's too many games. Supply and demand works. There's too much supply, and the demand is there, but the prices on both ends are all wrong.

 

[Magius]

I wonder how many people have even read an EULA before clicking the "Okay" button? Not many I'd guess.
Of those who did read it and clicked "Okay," I wonder how many had no intention of upholding their end of the agreement? I'd guess most.

 

[Dustin]

I was working on a reply to Nailz and a few others, but... the debate has become exhausting. :Spin:

 

[AeonicSlumber]

That's nice. I still purchased a product. If it's not the conduit (the game disk or the download) that I can transfer, it's the license. Steam does not allow for game trading, probably for this very reason, which, frankly, I think is stupid as fuck, but it's certainly a good way to stop selling used product by the masses. Also, I wasn't really talking about gamestop, but if that's how a company is going to make money, fine. More power to them.

Actually buying games on steam = more money for the developers because the hardware companies (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) take a royalty on all physical retail sales (I think they take a 20% royalty). This is also why hardware is marked down, because they can subsidize a lack of profits from hardware sales with essentially free money. It's a brilliant business strategy.

Anywho, saying "I purchased a product" is like saying "I purchased a bootleg copy of a movie, I purchased it hoo hoo." Doesn't make it right, or even legal. Either way, my point is that companies have every right to internally do what they can to protect their IP. I'm not saying whether or not I even disagree with you on this issue, I'm just stating the legal facts and truth.

No, see, the entire basis of the current argument is that Content Creators are getting super shafted by corporate mediators who are in charge of marketing their products.

Explain please. I'm not sure what you mean. What corporate mediators are shafting bands for example?

Content Creators aren't creating content for release to the public anymore. They're doing it for corporations to whore out products and turn cash cows.

Again, elaborate please.

Taking art and maximizing it's profit, morals be damned. For a perfect example of how this could be rectified in the gaming industry, one has to look no further than Minecraft. Here's a simple, low key game that has made one man literally millions of dollars, and that was while the game was in beta. Fuck, Notch TELLS people to pirate a copy when they're broke and just buy it when they can afford it. Here's a guy that gets it.

No offense, but Notch is a piece of shit scumbag. He made false promises to consumers about the final version of Minecraft and bailed on the project as soon as it launched. I wouldn't use him as a role model for anything.

But let's talk about Minecraft - because I am glad you brought this up. It is the games industry equivalent of the old music business hat-tip that "anyone can make a record at home now!" Minecraft barely cost Notch any money to make and the beta version became popular because of the freedom it allowed gamers in terms of creating their own worlds. The game looks like absolute shit and is almost an insult to actual retro games like the Megamans and Final Fantasy of yore that actually had PAID artists and character designers and developers that pushed their games as far as they could visually go. I'm not necessarily taking away from Minecraft's artistic merit here, but what I am saying is that if you want to live in a world in which all games look like that - go right ahead because I do not. I will pay for a triple a title and support it because I respect the intellectual effort that was put into it.

Just because some band can track a record on their macbook doesn't mean it's going to sound good. No 17 year old kid will ever be able to replace the talent of a real producer and no laptop will ever replace real gear. Shit, even bands/artists that became successful on producing their own material at home like Skrillex and Periphery are using studios and engineers now that they have the budgets for it.

My biggest problem with arguments like yours is that you use these MBA verbiages to quantify talent when you just cannot. Creative content is not about "welp supply and demand lololol" when it's pretty obvious that most people want a quality product. Minecraft sold millions of units. That's nice. Call Of Duty decimates Minecraft in sales. Not everyone wants a "cheap" game or record. In fact, if you go by sales records, the public leans towards the bigger productions, etc. Five Finger Death Punch has 2 gold records going on 3, all 3 of their records were produced using Line 6 PODs, autotune, and fake drums and it cost their label (who is also their management) very little money. What this means is now their label and management is now swimming in money due to having MORE than recouped their costs, but their records sound like fucking shit from an engineering standpoint. Conversely, a band like Alice in Chains probably spent a few hundred grand on "Black Gives Way To Blue," which also went gold. It probably cost AIC's label WAY more and the label made WAY less on the investment due to this. If you think that "corporations" are purposely spending money just to make it harder for the consumer I've got news for you: it ideally SHOULD be in their best interest to spend as little money as possible on a product, but that's not always the case. Thus, you cannot quantify talent.

Your problem is that you seem to justify piracy with economics jargon when you really can't. Shit dude, I pirate! But I don't justify it to other people and I try to support the institutions that I care about as best to my abilities since I want them to keep thriving. Don't pretend you know what the public "wants." If the public doesn't want it, they wouldn't be pirating it.

 

[DuchessOfDork]

Sorry, I just wanted to repost this because I love Raven!

However, I soon found out that it COSTS money to create and improve a competitive sounding recording that people will actually give a chance and possibly enjoy, as well as take seriously. Thanks to technological advances, it actually costs a fraction of what it used to 20, or even 10 years ago to record an album that sounds competitive.

Oh dude, tell me about it. Every time we go to record, the guys and I have to pitch in. Some pitch in more than others. The fact is that without money to do it, our latest album would sound like our first album and.. well, it wouldn't have turned out as good. So yes, you need money to make a competative product, and it sucks when people steal that product. I just don't think that shutting down something like MegaUpload is the way to go. What about people using it to share their own property? You're hurting others in the process, trying to get to the root of a piracy problem.

All this being said, trying to police the internet is just a terrible idea.

The nerds shall inherit the earth.
/pushes up nonexistent glasses

 

[nailz]

I was working on a reply to Nailz and a few others, but... the debate has become exhausting

That's a shame. People who support the destruction of the internet are so rare, it's nice to see how the other side thinks.

 

[Justin G]

That's a shame. People who support the destruction of the internet are so rare, it's nice to see how the other side thinks.

That's a completely unfair statement, especially in light of his lengthy and well-thought out responses here. Disagree all you want, but I think he's earned a bit more respect than "you want to blow up the internet."

 

[J. Golden]

That's a completely unfair statement, especially in light of his lengthy and well-thought out responses here. Disagree all you want, but I think he's earned a bit more respect than "you want to blow up the internet."

Agreed.
It is well spoken, perhaps misguided but well spoken and apparently thought went into it.

 

[SkiBumMSP]

Where did I say that you're not allowed to do that? Find it for me please...

Though with that being said, from a legal standpoint no you're technically not. Here's why:



The difference is that when you buy a couch, you buy a piece of furniture and you own that couch. The value of that couch comes from the materials, the physical labor being put in to make the couch, etc. When you buy a video game, you actually buy a "license" to play that game. The value of the game isn't the box or the disc (I mean yeah there's SENTIMENTAL value to that, but the disc and the box are not worth 60 bucks). The value of the game is the GAME, which is intellectual property and cost millions of dollars and staff to create. The making of a game does not come from quantifiable things (no physical materials), but rather intellectual creative talent. Whether you agree with that isn't up for debate because that's the fact. A developer has every legal right in the world to protect its IP from being resold. That's just the fact. Gamestop buys back and sells used games because it makes up a large portion of their business, and they could hold the games industry hostage by refusing to sell games if developers tried to sue them or whatever. Gamestop is actually an extremely shady company that pretty much broke monopoly regulations by buying out EBgames, but because of their power over developers, they get away with murder.

I mean really. When you watch a movie, start up a game etc, and you get the message that says "THIS PRODUCT IS NOT FOR PRIVATE CONSUMPTION ONLY, FAILURE TO COMPLY RESULTS IN A 250,000 DOLLAR FINE" (I'm paraphrasing) did you close your eyes each and every time?

You don't have a right to that game, as much as you think you do. Now, personally, I don't care about situations like these. I don't think purchasing USED out of print IP hurts anyone, but I'm being objective.

First-sale Doctrine begs to differ. Yes, there is grey area with regards to computer software, and these companies are trying to get around it with EULA's, but the fact of the matter is that people do have the right and ability to sell off their used games once they are done playing them, as long as it is a legitimately purchased copy and they did not go and make another copy to keep for themselves after selling it off. Same thing for DVDs and CDs.

I'm not even going to address this question from both you and nailz. If you can't figure out that the loss of content creators = the loss of art... well, you've missed the entire basis of this thread. And don't give me some nonsense like "if the comsumer wants the loss of art, then we should allow for that." NOBODY wants the loss of art. You try living in a world with no music, games, film, literature. I couldn't even fathom it.

Oh puuuuleeez! That argument is so old and tired, even the dinosaurs gave up on that one! Yeah, we are just seeing the whole video game industry collapsing right around us because of all the rampant, out-of-control second-hand market! Just like we are seeing the whole music and movie industry collapsing around us as well due to all the second hand CDs and DVDs being sold and traded.

Come to think of it, I cannot get past the irony of this whole copyright/piracy argument. All the pro-SOPA/IP folks go off on how the downloaders somehow have an "entitlement" mentality. What the hell do you call this? First, wanting to extend copyright limitations to extremely long periods, wanting to shut-down/ban the whole second-hand market, and now wanting to stifle the internet, just to maximize profits? That comes across as looking awfully like entitlement to me!

Going back to the Constitution itself, I found in Article I, section 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

No where does it say that anybody is guaranteed maximum profits from their works. 95 years or author's life plus 70 years, not to mention wanting carte blanche powers to shut-down "offending" websites or to stifle second-hand sales is going way beyond "limited" in my book.

I also saw a post whining about how the "big tech" does not want to help with the piracy or that they refuse because they don't think it is their problem. Guess what, it may actually NOT be their problem. It is not their fault that you cannot figure out how to make money on your albums. Is it Sear/Craftman's problem because somebody used their tools to break into a house or car? Is it Ford's problem because somebody used their car to get drunk, got in a wreck and killed somebody? No more is it Google's problem because the person downloading happens to use their search engine. No more Microsoft's problem because the computer happens to be running Windows. No more NVIDIA's problem because the computer happens to use their graphics card for the display. No more Intel's problem because the computer happens to be running one of their "Core" CPUs.

Again, as I said time and again, that I am all for artists wanting to make money off their works. Lord knows, being a software engineer that after spending a couple millions of dollars on this software I've spent the last 4 years developing, I certainly want to recoup that plus some. But at the same time, why should John Q. Public down the street have their rights trampled on because I am not able to sell my work? That is a business issue that me and my company needs to figure out and address. At least, in my particular case, I am able to sell this and making pretty damn good money, plus the fact that you need a very expensive piece of hardware to make it work helps.

 

[nailz]

That's a completely unfair statement, especially in light of his lengthy and well-thought out responses here. Disagree all you want, but I think he's earned a bit more respect than "you want to blow up the internet."

Probably. Still, just a generalization and a response to someone shutting down dialogue.

Actually buying games on steam ... a brilliant business strategy.

I'm glad you brought all of this up. It's something I know about but never really take into consideration.

Anywho, saying "I purchased a product" is like saying "I purchased a bootleg copy of a movie, I purchased it hoo hoo." Doesn't make it right, or even legal.

Wait what? If I buy a movie from a big box retail store, be it best buy or Amazon, I'm pretty sure the company who distributes this product gets money, vs. Going to some street corner and buying a marked with Sharpie DVD. One of these is legal, one of these isn't. Buying the Sharpie marked product shouldn't be an illegal act, selling it should. But that's a whole other can of worms. I can't legally sell a stolen couch. I can legally sell a legally purchased couch, so you're going to have to elaborate on your point.

Explain please. I'm not sure what you mean. What corporate mediators are shafting bands for example?

Come on man. You've seen the numbers for what bands make on album sales after everyone gets through taking their cut. It's pennies on the dollar. If they're lucky. Unless you are in a top selling band CD sales don't make you money. Once again, it comes down to the cost of production, distribution, and marketing. It's too expensive and everyone wants their piece of the pie.

Fuck. Look at Photography, for another example of the Arts who're getting shafted by companies. Bands can't pay me because they can't afford it, publications won't. Everything "leads to more work".

Content Creators aren't creating content for release to the public anymore. They're doing it for corporations to whore out products and turn cash cows.

Elaborate? Ok.

No offense, but Notch is a piece of shit scumbag. He made false promises to consumers about the final version of Minecraft and bailed on the project as soon as it launched. I wouldn't use him as a role model for anything.

I know nothing about this. Just that the game is immensely popular and incredibly open and enjoyable despite not costing millions of dollars and requiring a team of 50.

But let's talk about Minecraft - The game looks like absolute shit and is almost an insult to actual retro games like the Megamans and Final Fantasy of yore that actually had PAID artists and character designers and developers that pushed their games as far as they could visually go.

Lol. I see. Graphics > Gameplay. I mean, yes, Megaman was a fantastic series. it ruled. But it ruled because of Gameplay. Yes, it looked awesome, which added to it, but if it played like shit, no one would want it. Also, Final Fantasy 13. Your argument is invalid.

Just because some band can track a record on their macbook doesn't mean it's going to sound good. No 17 year old kid will ever be able to replace the talent of a real producer and no laptop will ever replace real gear. Shit, even bands/artists that became successful on producing their own material at home like Skrillex and Periphery are using studios and engineers now that they have the budgets for it.

Hey, I've got this magic camera. It's $3000 for the body and another $2000 for a lens. If you buy this combo, you will be an instant professional photographer, based on the fact that you spent $5000! No actual skill or understanding required! Also, I can sell you this sit up machine that will transform you from Gabe Newell to Chuck Norris just by using it 10 minutes a day, once a month!

A nice camera body and lens is to a good photographer as a studio is to a good musician. It will enhance your craft, but it's not going to make you a success if you're not already good at what you do. The problem again comes down to cost analysis. Is it worth it for a band to go into studio and blow $50,000 on a CD if they can't recoup the costs? No. Does someone who doesn't know anything about Photography go out and buy a Canon 1DS and a 70-200 F2.8L and expect to be the next Sam Abell? Well, probably, but it doesn't mean it's a smart move. I started on a low end body with shitty lenses. I built up my experiences and then moved on to equipment that could better enhance my craft. Some 17 year old who's tracking on their macbook probably would sound great in a studio after spending $50,000, but they sure as fuck aren't going to be DJ Tiesto.

In fact, if you go by sales records, the public leans towards the bigger productions, etc. Five Finger Death Punch has 2 gold records going on 3, all 3 of their records were produced using Line 6 PODs, autotune, and fake drums and it cost their label (who is also their management) very little money.

That's awesome for them. FFDP is a band that worked hard and got it right. I'm not trying to discredit bands who are good at what they do. In fact, this is lauding to my actual point anyway. You don't need to spend a fortune to put out a product people want to pay for. In fact, it's too bad more bands don't take this cheap approach so they don't go bankrupt putting out a product few people want to buy.

Minecraft sold millions of units. That's nice. Call Of Duty decimates Minecraft in sales.

Lol, yes, what a completely fair analogy, Fox News. Let's take an indie game that has 0 PR, basically is always going to be a project in the works, created by one guy, with a very niche audience (lego fans and engineers) and put it up against a game with a massive teenage following that has been re-released 15 (lets face it, Battlefield is the same fucking game) times already, has a massive, ludicrous budget for PR built based on previous release sales and compare notes. We'll measure the success based on nothing but sales figures. While we're at it, lets compare walmart to Mom and Pop local shops, or Pizza Hut to a Local Pizzeria.

If you think that "corporations" are purposely spending money just to make it harder for the consumer I've got news for you: it ideally SHOULD be in their best interest to spend as little money as possible on a product, but that's not always the case. Thus, you cannot quantify talent.

Ah. No. I think this is where you're misunderstanding me. I'm of the mindset that Corporations are using Artists as their own personal cash cows, and bleeding them dry. I think they're overcharging for products that have a very limited appeal and saturating the market with choices to cover every single base, essentially throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks longest. I think they're screwing over bands and game designers and developers and anyone else in the industry and destroying any shred of self respect these people had for their work so they can get paid and feed their family before getting laid off before the corporate machine moves on to the next boulder they can squeeze blood from. I think it's disgusting how companies treat the people that make their products.

Your problem is that you seem to justify piracy with economics jargon when you really can't.

Eh, probably seems that way. But, really, I'm just trying to draw attention to the fact that the companies are bombarding the public with expensive toys and then wonders why people can't afford them. The public wants these things, sure. And in the long run, in the grand scheme of things, Video Games are a FANTASTIC financial investment even at $60 for the time you spend on them, but in the end, like I said, people do not have the finances to purchase everything they want. It doesn't justify piracy, you can't have something you want if you can't afford it... I've got no qualms about that. I'm merely trying to explain why it's so prevalent, and why it probably will never stop.

 

[nailz]

Just so everyone is clear: I would never vote for myself as president. I'm too liberal for my own tastes.

 

[dcowboys311]

So, selling/buying used CDs is ok because the amount of money that goes into making one is less than video game. Gotcha. It's perfectly moral despite that fact that it is essentially a 100% perfect bootleg copy -- you, the consumer, receive the whole physical product for an incredibly marked-down price, and the artist, label, and folks behind the product don't receive a cent. The sales information never makes it to the label, so the band isn't having their numbers or priority or tour support increased. Joebob666 has more deposited into his Paypal account from the Ebay transaction than the artist sees on the entire album, but as long as you aren't downloading that CD, you're fine by me.


PS I'm just not gonna say anything more. Everything SkiBum says is spot on and he says it without looking like a douche!

 

[nailz]

So, selling/buying used CDs is ok because the amount of money that goes into making one is less than video game. Gotcha. It's perfectly moral despite that fact that it is essentially a 100% perfect bootleg copy -- you, the consumer, receive the whole physical product for an incredibly marked-down price, and the artist, label, and folks behind the product don't receive a cent. But as long as you aren't downloading that CD, you're fine by me.

Wait, is this directed at me or AS? Because I'm totally for both of these things happening.

If you're referring to AS's argument, I think his main point was that when you're buying a CD vs a Game, is that you're buying THE CD, but you're not buying the game, merely the licence to be able to use the software [game], which is by the End User Licence Agreement (EULA) non-transferable. Much like, say, a copy of Windows OS.

So, in essence, no, he's saying something completely different than what you just said.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

First-sale Doctrine begs to differ. Yes, there is grey area with regards to computer software, and these companies are trying to get around it with EULA's, but the fact of the matter is that people do have the right and ability to sell off their used games once they are done playing them, as long as it is a legitimately purchased copy and they did not go and make another copy to keep for themselves after selling it off. Same thing for DVDs and CDs.

Fair enough. I wasn't necessarily contesting the legality of selling games back (although I do contest the legality of Gamestop's existence in the first place, but that's neither here nor there), so much as I was saying that IP creators pretty much have the right to do what they can to prevent you from selling the game. Like I said, I never said that you're not allowed to trade in games or buy used content (I only asserted that technically, license agreements protect companies from that practice). I just said that I personally don't partake in it/don't agree with it.

All the pro-SOPA/IP folks

If you're implying I am for these bills, I'm going to stop right here. I clearly stated otherwise.

now wanting to stifle the internet

Never said this.

I also saw a post whining about how the "big tech" does not want to help with the piracy or that they refuse because they don't think it is their problem.

It wasn't from me. So don't make it look like it was by only quoting me in your post.

Is it Sear/Craftman's problem because somebody used their tools to break into a house or car? Is it Ford's problem because somebody used their car to get drunk, got in a wreck and killed somebody? No more is it Google's problem because the person downloading happens to use their search engine. No more Microsoft's problem because the computer happens to be running Windows. No more NVIDIA's problem because the computer happens to use their graphics card for the display. No more Intel's problem because the computer happens to be running one of their "Core" CPUs.

Again, I never said that non-malicious sites like Google should be penalized for something they cannot control. That is why I was against SOPA/PIPA. However, I do think that intentionally malicious sites like Megaupload that make hundreds of millions of dollars off the backs of other people's work SHOULD be penalized.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

So, selling/buying used CDs is ok because the amount of money that goes into making one is less than video game. Gotcha.

Dude you know I love you, but if you're going to call me out on shit I didn't say because you didn't take the time to read what I wrote, well I ain't mad or anything, but yeah, that's kinda shitty. I never said ANYTHING to that effect. I just said the facts that one bad game can ruin a company and has. This is because video game companies don't put out 13 games a year. Even Nintendo rarely puts out more than 5 games a year. Most labels on the other hand put out 30 releases a year at minimum. One bad record would not ruin the label. Nowhere did I say one is better than the other, but I did say that I personally like to support the company that puts out that material.

It's perfectly moral despite that fact that it is essentially a 100% perfect bootleg copy -- you, the consumer, receive the whole physical product for an incredibly marked-down price, and the artist, label, and folks behind the product don't receive a cent. The sales information never makes it to the label, so the band isn't having their numbers or priority or tour support increased. Joebob666 has more deposited into his Paypal account from the Ebay transaction than the artist sees on the entire album, but as long as you aren't downloading that CD, you're fine by me.

Never said any of this either. Seriously, wat?

 

[dcowboys311]

Eh it started as simply a tongue-in-cheek response to AS but then I went and edited my post and added a bunch of stuff without removing the direct reference. So more like I can't proofread. Herp derp.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

And for the record, I pirate (although not NEARLY as much because of Spotify - and also, I do make it a point to buy the CD or Vinyl if I really think it's good). The ubermensch moral allies on this board can shit on me for that all they want for that, but I'm a human being. I understand that. I also think the consumer shouldn't be forced to buy a product without sampling THE ENTIRE THING. But that doesn't mean I'm for these entitled kids who act like they are doing bands a favor by pirating all their music, going to their shows for free by getting on the guest list, etc.

 

[nailz]

A WHOLE BUNCH OF WORDS THAT WHEN ASSEMBLED IN A SPECIFIC ORDER MAKE AN ORNATE AMOUNT OF SENSE.

This guy, I think he gets it.

 

[Pelata]

Just a few quick drive-by points:

- "second hand" was once "first hand"...the owners/licensors of this single unit were paid when it was sold the first time...to expect to be paid every time this "first hand" unit changes hands is ludicrous...this goes for CDs, DVDs, cars, refrigerators, etc. The seller no longer owns it, but a single buyer still does.

- "selling stolen" vs "buying stolen" wherein the seller is the one breaking the law makes perfect sense to a degree. But if the buyer KNOWS it's stolen, doesn't that make a difference?

 

[J. Golden]

perhaps that explains sold promos "reviewers" receive for free.