Scalping is discouraged on this forum, and so shouldn't all pro scalping posts also b

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Ok, so first you say only those involved in the creative process should be allowed to profit. Now as long as they're a dealer they are allowed to profit also...even though they ARE NOT involved in the creative process.

Please decide which argument you want to use and stick to it.



If it is illegal to sell, then it's true people are not entitled to sell an item. But if it is legal for them to sell it, then they have every right to sell it...whether it be at a profit or loss. Ethics has no bearing on the matter. Reselling a collectible for profit does not fall into the legal definition of Ethics Violations...Ethics Violations ARE punishable by law.



I didn't get your point because you were not very clear about the point you were attempting to make. My reply was dead on in regards to the face value of your weakly explained point. However, I DID NOT misunderstand...YOU just weren't clear and didn't articulate the original point well enough.

NEXT.

First: The artists know they are making for SS and that it is a company and that they sell through retailers. That is all a part of it. The expect this, as it is an integral part of their job, as it is part of how they get paid. The artist does not get more money when the scalper resells a piece even when it is new, before it is even in any other customers hands, ie ebay pre sales. That is wrong. The right people need to get the profits, ie the people who had a role in producing said items.

two: That depends upon the type of ethics we are talking about. You are talking about "ethics violations" which are in effect, laws. We already know that scalping isn't illegal, so that is a red herring.
 
yep it would be stupid to do that.

the smarter thought from manufacturers would be "if customers that missed our preorder are willing to buy the item 2nd hand we should have made extra to meet that demand"...not "we should risk alienating customers by raising prices". :rolleyes: Economics of scale, the more items SSC makes the more profitable. As long as they don't undercut themselves by overproducing.

Hear hear!
 
Second question: Not everyone is entitled to sell anything they feel like for profit. Some things are illegal, like crack, and some things are unethical to sell in a certain manner or by certain people, while they are ethical to be sold by others. Concert tickets and limited edition collectibles are ethical to be sold by authorized dealers, but not by scalpers.

Not being able to sell crack is not a moral issue. It's a legal one, and the fact that it is illegal does not make it immoral to sell it.

The purpose of law is not to dictate moral standards; it is to protect the rights of the citizens who live under it. In this country, those rights are essentially property rights, and simply because one group of people see the manufacture/sale/ownership of a product as immoral, that does not give them the right to deny those who do not consider it immoral.

You believe it is immoral to sell crack? Good for you. Do you believe gang violence is immoral? Because the prohibition on illegal drugs has contributed to the destruction of more lives than the use of any drug ever will. Between the lives lost to homicide, the lives wasted in prisons, and the wealth destroyed, confiscated, extorted in fines, or squandered in prevention programs, I'd say that the prohibition of illegal drugs is infinitely more evil than any man who ever sold a rock of crack.

Blackthornone said:
Question three: You didn't get my point. The most direct and simple motivations to buy something are always to obtain that particular thing for it's own sake, WITHOUT ULTERIOR MOTIVE, or hidden agenda. ...
It is clear that you misunderstood.

You assumed that objections to this point were due to a lack of understanding? Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that you have yet to provide an actual argument for why there is something more moral about direct/simple motivations. Because all you have done here is explain what you mean by direct/simple motivation. You have said nothing about why it is better, aside from some nonsense about the universe being simple and direct. Last I checked, human action is far more complex than any natural law. There is no good reason why we should strip our behavior down to the bare necessities.

If SSC was owned by stockholders you could bet your mortgage that the Disney PF line would be marketed big time. They would have deals to sell these in Southwest airline catalogs and Disney shops and every little shop at Disneyworld. When you're able to sell 100,000 units to people that just want a quality product (and could care less about ed. sizes) because you're able to reach that many do you care that the 1500 people that you otherwise would have capped yourself at are complaining?

I'm fairly certain that this would not stop scalping either. There will always be someone far enough out of the loop, and with adequate disposable income to pay scalper prices. What's more, the catalogs in which I've seen Sideshow PF's tend to price above MSRP.
 
Last edited:
First: The artists know they are making for SS and that it is a company and that they sell through retailers. That is all a part of it. The expect this, as it is an integral part of their job, as it is part of how they get paid. The artist does not get more money when the scalper resells a piece even when it is new, before it is even in any other customers hands, ie ebay pre sales. That is wrong. The right people need to get the profits, ie the people who had a role in producing said items.

The artists are paid what they are contracted for. They have no claim on the profits made through the secondary market. They don't deserve it, and they don't have a right to it.

When a scalper profits, and the money goes in their pocket, that is the right person. The artist assumed no risk in undertaking to flip the piece, and they don't deserve a cent of the money made by the one who did assume the risk. The artist did nothing to make that extra cash; the scalper did it all.
 
First: The artists know they are making for SS and that it is a company and that they sell through retailers. That is all a part of it. The expect this, as it is an integral part of their job, as it is part of how they get paid. The artist does not get more money when the scalper resells a piece even when it is new, before it is even in any other customers hands, ie ebay pre sales. That is wrong. The right people need to get the profits, ie the people who had a role in producing said items.

Again, you're incorrect. The artists sign a contract for a specified amount up front. So they are not due anything from scalper sales/profits. Sideshow has a contract with their factories for a specified amount of product at an agreed upon price which allows SSC to meet their desired profit margin. All of these goals are met prior to any scalper making any money. Therefore, the artist, factories and even SSC aren't losing any money due to scalpers. The people who had a role in producing/distributing/etc said items are getting what is due to them AND what they contractually agreed to.

NEXT.

two: That depends upon the type of ethics we are talking about. You are talking about "ethics violations" which are in effect, laws. We already know that scalping isn't illegal, so that is a red herring.

Great, now you want to bring birds into the discussion.:rolleyes:

EDIT: glad to know I won't be lonely on my island...devilof76 is there to keep me company :)
 
These SS items are way overpriced as it is compared to real world values, about 3X as much as they should cost. The only reason why they are so expensive is because the number is limited.

Is there some kind of cosmic index out there of what things 'should' cost?

Sideshow owns the products. What they choose to price them at is the price they 'should' be.
 
No. Everything is black and white. Gray is just little black dots on a white background that only appears gray to the casual observer. If you look more closely, you will see that it is indeed a field made up of black and white. I know this because I analyze things deeply as I have always been a deep thinker. Most people don't bother questioning things the way I do. I ask what makes something tick? What makes something function ? What is a thing REALLY at the deepest possible level? What is it's meaning? Most people just look at things at an overall degree, and simply accept things as a package, with no intent to look deeper, or find any flaws, any SPECIFIC flaws about it that could be fixed. THAT would require looking deeply enough to see specific flaws within a system or any given situation, and thus see the little black dots on the white background. That would force people to face the challenge of actually fixing those flaws and removing those black dots. Most people don't have the passion, determination or the patience. They certainly don't have the idealism, because they have accepted too many of these black and white systems within themselves and called them part of their identity.

People see gray because they don't feel like fixing all of the problems that cause the black dots to make the field white again. Seeing things as gray is basically the result of lazy perceptive skills resulting from personal apathy at improving oneself, because change is always uncomfortable in the short term, and people are most interested in short term comfort.

Most people are interested in short term comfort most, because that is all they can really see, because accepting all of those little black dots into one's identity clouds one's vision from being able to see further. It is hard to see flaws when so many of those flaws are already in oneself that one has accepted as one's own identity, and it is difficult if not impossible to see past, or THROUGH those flaws, because they block or cloud one's vision, so one cannot see the long view, or rather, the broad view, particularly how one's actions affect the world around oneself, as one's actions tend to become egocentric, as one simply cannot see beyond oneself. One doesn't see anything beyond oneself as all that important, because basically one's vision or perception/senses are too reduced from being able to sense or really care about the well being of others, thus preventing empathy.
That is essentially where greed comes from.

:rotfl

You know, Socrates was a deep thinker but he lived a pauper's life. How are you able to afford high end collectibles when you're far too busy pondering how the world works? What do you do career wise, if you don't mind me asking?

Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril....
 
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril....

Beneath the surface is only for those with true grit.
picture.php
 
So Prog, you are suggesting that Sideshow should always produce however many items they are sure that they could sell? That might make sense in most industries, but these are collectibles we are talking about. Not dishwater detergent or bread. Lots of folks buy things, in some measure, because they are not in limitless supply. Their intrinsic scarcity makes them valuable in the eyes of some (not just because a limited supply means that demand will not be met, but because people like owning something that not everyone else will own).

If Sideshow got the reputation of re-releasing items, for instance, in order to meet demand (which they sort of do anyway, with all the "2nd chance" business), it would turn some people off. It would make their items seem less "hot" as you say. Fewer people would clamor for pre-orders. Knowing that the secondary market prices would stay at retail level or go down, people might just keep waiting and waiting and never actually bite the bullet at all, because a lot of buying of Sideshow merchandise is a function of hype and uncertainty. People figure they better order now, or they may regret it later, etc.

In any case, I agree with SnakeDoctor in that I'm sure Sideshow doesn't care too much about scalping. They know it is going to happen from time to time, and it probably does benefit them in perpetuating the idea that people need to buy from them early and often.

To some degree what you say is true about es, but we aren't necessarily talking about going from a 1,000 es to a 10,000 es. SS can just increase the es while LOWERING the price, and in the end SS will make more money. If SS lowered the price one -third, they might sell twice or three times as many. SS would make a lot more money, and be able to come out with more new products, and because the items would be cheaper, people would be able to collect more. They would be able to collect many lines. It would be a win win for all, except the scalpers.
 
Had you considered the possibility that making money is not their only goal?

It seems to me that the goal of SSC is to make art that people really like, which enriches the quality of their lives, and allows SSC to make money doing so, so that they can have a high quality of life. Of course, I'm sure that most of the people at SSC are into these collectibles themselves, so making these collectibles enriches their live to have them in addition. What else is there?
I figured you were speaking of SSC. You were talking about scalpers, instead? They are not needed. SSC can sell things just fine all by themselves, along with their licensed retailers.
 
The purpose that scalpers serve has nothing to do with SSC. SSC doesn't have to need them for their actions to be legitimate. The money they make for themselves and the service they provide to those who missed pre-orders are justification enough.

But, what I was suggesting is that SSC has a stake in creating limited edition collectibles (and not just making as much money as they can by whoring the edition sizes). They decide how many is too many, or too few, and the issue of scalpers should not enter that equation.
 
The purpose that scalpers serve has nothing to do with SSC. SSC doesn't have to need them for their actions to be legitimate. The money they make for themselves and the service they provide to those who missed pre-orders are justification enough.

But, what I was suggesting is that SSC has a stake in creating limited edition collectibles (and not just making as much money as they can by whoring the edition sizes). They decide how many is too many, or too few, and the issue of scalpers should not enter that equation.

Scalpers provide a disservice in my opinion, because they make these collectibles about money instead of passion, and instead sells them to rich lazy people, or people who lack the commitment to be there when a PPO or a newsletter comes up. I say that the first sincere collectors to order something are the ones who should get them period. Anyone who has to work instead at that time has their priorities set, and thus they will miss out on another collector who is more dedicated. Maybe the other collectors are self employed, and that is why they are there first. Whatever. No one gets EVERYTHING they want in this world. Sometimes people miss out. That's the way it is. Oh, for the record, in case you haven't figured out, I think that people put too much emphasis on making money, particularly at the expense of morality or ethics. If you can't afford collectibles without scalping, then maybe you can't afford them at all. That's tough. There are a lot of things I'd like, like an SR71, but I could never afford one, let alone the maintenance cost, so I don't have one now.


I agree that scalpers should not enter that equation. They should NEVER enter the equation of collectibles. Their existence in the collectibles market are as beneficial to a true and dedicated collector as a second biological back door.
 
Who are you to judge who is and who isn't sincere or passionate or dedicated enough to own a collectible?

Also, making money is one of the most moral actions a human being can take part in.
 
Who are you to judge who is and who isn't sincere or passionate or dedicated enough to own a collectible?

Also, making money is one of the most moral actions a human being can take part in.

You obviously are an advocate of unrestricted capitalism, whereas I am not. I think that There must be moral considerations as well as legal ones in terms of making money. Because we are coming from two fundamentally different perspectives, we can only agree to disagree it seems. I can only hope to argue the evils of scalping with someone who thinks that there can be ethical or moral considerations for making money outside of the law. If you can't accept that there can ever be such considerations, we will never come to agreement. You can only convince someone of a view on a more superficial matter if their more basic perspective on right and wrong is similar to your own. I have to ask, are you a satanist?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top