Page 5 of 6

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:03 pm
by ianmacd
kc28kenneth wrote:a) When in point 4, I wrote that "if any of those sellers honestly believe that any remaining copies will be trashed, then I take back all that I have said in their regard", I was obviously not referring to you, unless you are one of those sellers.


I didn't take it as referring to me.

Therefore I am not putting any words in your mouth.


But you did, because you quoted me and then added text of your own in parentheses to make a complete sentence. However, what you implied I was saying in parentheses was not what I was saying.

b) One cannot acknowledge something selectively. One either acknowledges something or one does not.


Not so. Once can acknowledge a point in one part of the text and then ignore the point when it's expedient to do so. And that's what you did.

So when I acknowledged the obvious fact that the artist could always press more CDs, I did not feel the need to repeat it in every paragraph.


Nor am I saying you should. But equally, you should not continue to make arguments based on a statement, the falsity of which you claim to now acknowledge.

When I said that eBay sellers have made the CD artificially scarcer (or something to that effect), I obviously meant that the artificial scarcity was made before the CDs were put on eBay, so that they would be sold at a higher price. I would think this is common sense. So yes, the eBay sellers did make the CDs scarcer prior to selling them.


You'll have to restate this more clearly if you want me to respond. I can't follow it.

If there are 20 CDs, and the eBayers buy them all, before they put them on eBay, there are no CDs left. It's that simple. So no, I never claimed that "there would be more copies available for sale today, if there were fewer people selling them".


The conclusion you draw in the second sentence is unrelated to the statement in the first. The first sentence, whilst factual, does nothing to bear out claims you made in a previous posting.

You claimed that eBay sellers were depriving fans of the chance to purchase the CD through official channels, but you have still failed to offer any evidence that anyone who wished to buy a CD through the official channels has been unable to do so.

d) Regarding the shipwreck hypothesis, you do not need more detail to answer it. The question is simple. Would you sell a sandwitch at 100 euros to a starving man if he cannot eat otherwise? If you can't answer that simple question without qualifications, you are free to give them as well.


Then I'll answer 'no' for the sake of simplicity.

e) Regarding discussing across a table over a glass of one's favourite beverage, as much as I would like that, I know that its not possible. However, I doubt that that kind of discussion would change anything, especially after a dozen or so of alcoholic drinks ;)


One of us might at least stop caring after the sixth drink or so. :)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:53 pm
by Heute
Meanwhile, there don't appear to be any of these CDs actually on ebay, and I would quite like to obtain one. :)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:01 pm
by little swan
thats kinda funny! :D

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:01 pm
by little swan
one thing that we all do have in common is our personal need to be "right". i guess it's the ego's deep fear of dying when our mental identifications are being challenged.
and I am no exception to that rule. :)

it seems to me that we have two very different perspectives here.
both get mixed up at times and the logic of argumentation suffers then.

one perspective is a somewhat materialistic and systemic one as i'd call it.
it seems to locate terms like origin and responsibility pretty much on the way the system itself functions. if an individual behaves this or that way it is simply seen as a logical consequence of the way the whole system is set up.
regarding our example this means that buying several copies of a rare Cd, then re-selling them at a much higher cost is nothing but a logical consequence of the way the system works, including the role of the artist who (for whatever reason) had decided to only release a limited number of copies. it all seems more or less like a law of nature.

the second perspective is a very different one. it is intrested in any individuals intrinsic motives. it's a perspective that cannot be looked at from the outside. here we investigate the "why" of actions within our own psyche. decisions are based on our ability of learning and self-reflection. we act according to our moral standards which (as i personally believe and which is empiricaly proven by people like Kohlberg etc) do develop in stages. depending on the stage of moral development we can do whatever we want (pre-conventional stage) or only what is allowed by the social consensus which is mostly expressed in law and order (conventional stage) or we can even develop beyond that when we discover that there are values of higher significance then the current social codex (post conventional stage) like for instance fighting for human rights in a state that denies them to its citizens.

thats just a very rough overview. my only point is that not all moral perspectives are of the same value or depth. ethics is much more than just personal opinions.

i'm not saying all of this to hint at e-bay sellers being stuck on the egocentric stage as we are far more complex as human beings.

but i do indeed favor a more self-responsible outlook on life.

why do I buy 10 copies and sell them at the price of 20 copies?
-most likely for the simple reason that i end up with a personal advantage.

do i care so much about the precious art to be delivered to all those poor and needy fans who want their cd NOW ?
- probably not.

at the end of the day an integrated view seems to make the most sense.
yes there is an influence of the outside dynamics on the way we behave but then it is also a choice left to each and everyone. the more aware you become of the outer and inner dynamics that motivate your actions the more choices you've got.

personally i dont want the law of the market to be the guideline of my actions. neither do i sympathise with the slightly manic "we want things now now now" attitude. i also dont think that any artist has a responsibility to distribute his/her work by any particular form, way or number.

he/she will obviously have to live with the consequences of his/her decisions but that is a different matter altogether .
not forgetting that those are consequences too of everybody else's decisions further down the line.
yours, mine, the ebay-sellers etc.

i do agree that the issue at hand is a rather trivial one. nevertheless i abused it to dive into my self absorbed ranting about god and the world (as we say in german).
:)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:46 pm
by Nikopol
if you want to buy one, try to get this one, it comes with the tour book!

http://cgi.ebay.de/Lisa-Gerrard-with-Kl ... ItemQQptZBücher_Unterhaltung_Music_CDs?hash=item414944ec4e&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

But I would wait until the shop gets online!

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:36 am
by character
Here, it is not unheard of to have limits set on the quantity of an item that a customer can buy. With privately-owned stores, the owners can set rules (as long as the rules do not violate other laws). For example, a store can set rules that customers must be wearing a shirt and shoes to receive service.

Usually, most store owners want to make as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, so it's not common for these quantity limits to be imposed. I suspect that when limits are imposed, it is because the distributors of the products request it from the store owners as a condition of placing the product in their store. Usually, the limits are placed on rare or limited edition items. Or items that are discounted.

Therefore, limiting the sales should work unless it occurs in a country that has a law against it (which I had never even heard of before but I guess it may be true in some places).

Another option is to label the cd as "not for resale". However, I don't know how enforceable such a label would be. There are some items here that can be labeled that way at least in certain circumstances.

Part of the problem with selling second-hand cds is that there is no legal difference, but there is at least a theoretical difference, between selling a used cd that you have owned for 5 years (for example) and selling a new cd still in the wrapping. If you're re-selling an old used cd, that seems generally acceptable. If you're re-selling a new cd at a higher price, that is considering "scalping" here, and it generally frowned up and under certain circumstances it is illegal. Ticket scalping is the most common example.

I know of one record company that somewhat successfully circumvented this by printing their suggested price on the back cover of the cd. Stores would generally raise the price by a dollar or two to cover their profit mark-up. Customers could by direct from the record company and have the cd shipped to them, or they could pay a few dollars more for the convenience of buying it at their local store and having it immediately. Most stores would know better than to raise the price too high above the printed price on the cover, because obviously customers would not pay inflated prices knowing that they could buy it elsewhere for a fair price. Unfortunately, with a limited edition cd and no online sales thus far, that option is not available.

saga

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:31 am
by icooper
Are we still going on with this boring ongoing saga chill out guys n gals :D lets look fwd to the new album and hopefully come quietly will apear on music share program,s or the websights online shop lets all keep fingers crossed im sure lisa gerrard n klaus wanted to actually rls this but it seems it didnt work i guess ths way but lets all hoope it becomes availerble

chin up guys xx :P :D :D :P

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:50 am
by kc28kenneth
To ianmacd:

I do not intend to argue my case anymore, since I think we both said enough. However, I will reply because in your last reply, you implied that I wrote or meant things which I did not.

When you say that I quoted you and then added text of my own in parenthesis, if the words in parentesis were meant to quote you, I would have used the normal boxed quote I usually use when quoting someone. The only instance where I did not use the boxed quotes was in my post with the numbered points, only because the conversation was getting too long. However, in that instance, and specifically in point 4, the reference to any trashed CDs was not even in parenthesis. Here are the exact words:

4. "How many of those sellers do you think even know this (that any remaining copies would be sold later)? You're assuming they all read this forum". Actually, I would think it is common sense. However, if any of those sellers honestly believe that any remaining copies will be trashed, then I take back all that I have said in their regard.


You will notice that in the text in parenthesis, in which you only asked how many sellers would know that CDs would be sold later, and where you told me I am assuming they read this forum, there was no reference to trashed CDs. I then replied by saying (among other things) that if the sellers honestly believe....(the CDs) will be trashed...I take back etc..

I think it is obvious (and I made it clear elsewhere) that if any remaining CDs are not sold, they are either trashed or stored forever (which is no different from being trashed. No other option is possible. So no, I did not attribute the trashing to you. I only said, in other words, that if the eBay sellers believe that any remaining copies would not be sold through the artist's channels, then they would have to believe that they would be trashed (or stored forever). That "they would be trashed" follows from "they would not be sold (or otherwise distributed)". It's logical, and it does not have to be attributed to you, and actually wasn't.

Regarding acknowledging a point in one part and ignoring it in the next, I would have done so (if I actually did, but I won’t bother to check) only if I thought it was not relevant to the second point. The fact remains that once you acknowledge a point, the point is acknowledged. Whether it is relevant in other places is a different matter. You may argue that the point does applies to the second argument, but you cannot say I did not acknowledge the point. All you can say is that perhaps (and I’m not saying this is so) I did not understand its relevance elsewhere.

I’m sorry I had to post yet another lengthy post, but since this has reverted to “you said this…â€

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:59 am
by kc28kenneth
ianmacd wrote:One of us might at least stop caring after the sixth drink or so. :)


I don't think we need the drinks for that ;) I think we are both arguing "for the sake of the argument" now. I've learned not to care too much about things I cannot change, and focus on things I can change. However, debate is different. Debate is like a drug...once you're in it, its not easy to get out (unless you have time or other constraints) ;)

So let the eBay sellers enjoy their sales (of the CD). I disagree with what they are doing, but there are "worse" things people do.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:04 am
by kc28kenneth
To little swan:

I think your last post may be summed up as explaining some of the differences between Utilitarian and Kantian ethics. It should be clear from my posts that I am not a utilitarian ;)

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:31 am
by Atardecer
Just quickly glancing over the opinions here - an interesting discussion thats worthy of debate i think. The main concern i have about ebay sellers etc is the customer. Certainly the artist has already received the money for the CD, but the potential customer is subsequently hit with a high price. Not too different from scalping tickets really. Someone who goes there to buy 10 copies obviously has more concern with the potential economic benefit of the album than the spiritual, aesthetic value of the music. Personally, i would prefer to see the album go to someone who wants to listen to it and not sell it! I guess its a matter of intent - If they buy it and dont like it, they're well within their rights to sell it on, given they were not given a chance to listen to it beforehand.

Reminds me of whenever I buy an album from a second-hand record shop. I always feel like a bit of a cheat. Sure its cheaper for the customer, the artist has already sold that unit and been paid, but really they have lost out on gaining a potential new buyer. :(

Before anyone goes out and spends too much, from what i know, there are left over copies of the CDs - they are of course still in europe so we dont have them to hand. We will certainly be looking to make them available through the shop at a fair price, that was always the plan and my apologies that we did not make that clear. Whether we will look to have a European company ship them out (makes sense given most of you folk are in the northern hemisphere :wink: ) or press some more copies here were not sure yet. I guess it depends on demand.

Also on a side note - thank you so much to those folk in Essen who stuck around after the announcement that Klaus couldnt perform. Lisa appreciated it very much as she was very nervous - probably her toughest gig yet. We appreciate that when you pay to see a gig you should get what you pay for so thanks again for not deserting the place. Thankfully, Klaus is doing much better. :)

Jim

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:04 am
by kc28kenneth
I must confess that I might have been wrong on suggesting that limiting sales to specific quantities per person could be illegal.

However, character mentioned "scalping". Makes you think...could (or should) laws against scalping apply to brand new CDs as they do to tickets?

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:26 am
by ianmacd
kc28kenneth wrote:To ianmacd:
When you say that I quoted you and then added text of my own in parenthesis, if the words in parentesis were meant to quote you, I would have used the normal boxed quote I usually use when quoting someone.


I've just looked at your posting again. You used quotation marks around a sentence, the first half of which consisted of a literal citation of my words, whilst the second half was parenthesised and consisted of words that weren't mine.

Together the whole sentence conveyed a meaning that suited your argument, not the one I was making. By using quotation marks, which has had a well-defined meaning for much longer than boxed quotes on Web-based forums, you definitely did imply that those were my words.

The only instance where I did not use the boxed quotes was in my post with the numbered points, only because the conversation was getting too long. However, in that instance, and specifically in point 4, the reference to any trashed CDs was not even in parenthesis.


I was referring to the first sentence, not the third.

Here are the exact words:

4. "How many of those sellers do you think even know this (that any remaining copies would be sold later)? You're assuming they all read this forum". Actually, I would think it is common sense. However, if any of those sellers honestly believe that any remaining copies will be trashed, then I take back all that I have said in their regard.



I'm referring to "this" in the first question, where your parenthetical addition implies that "this" refers to the addition, which is less specific than what I was actually saying. I was referring to knowledge that copies would be sold via Lisa's Web site, not just sold generically via some unknown outlet.

Unfortunately, the misquoting and misrepresentation of the argument has derailed the discussion and led to its degeneration into clarifications of intent and denials.

At this point, virtually all of my points have been made and I'm happy to let people make up their own mind about which argument is the more logical and better supported.

Regarding acknowledging a point in one part and ignoring it in the next, I would have done so (if I actually did, but I won’t bother to check) only if I thought it was not relevant to the second point.


It's a shame you won't bother to check, because you'd see that I'm right. And it was directly relevant, because you can't agree that the artist controls the available quantities and simultaneously maintain that eBay sellers are depriving fans of their right to buy at the standard retail price.

That's what you did, however, which is both irrational and indicative of selective acknowledgement of the truth to suit your argument.

The fact remains that once you acknowledge a point, the point is acknowledged.


Not if you subsequently argue in contradiction of it. Or perhaps you acknowledged an inferred meaning that was different to the intended one. I can't see any ambiguity in the words used, however.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:48 am
by ianmacd
Atardecer wrote:The main concern i have about ebay sellers etc is the customer. Certainly the artist has already received the money for the CD, but the potential customer is subsequently hit with a high price. Not too different from scalping tickets really.


Somewhere in this discussion, I should probably have pointed out that I, too, share the ideal that every fan should be able to purchase a copy of the CD for EUR 10. It's a shame that copies have to reach fans via eBay at inflated prices, but I can totally understand why those sellers choose to make some easy money. We all have to eat.

Similarly, I think it's a shame that at at least one venue on the recent tour, the CDs were sold for EUR 15 instead of EUR 10. Presumably, this was because the venue insisted on an unusually large slice of any takings from the merchandise stand. In fact, in some ways, I would have thought that was worse than the eBay phenomenon.

The chief difference with ticket scalping, as I see it, is one of finite resources. If a venue holds 1000 people, you can sell 1000 tickets. Once they're gone, they're gone. You can't print more, because the venue won't hold any more people.

A CD isn't like that. Sure, there are limited editions, but those are artificially scarce, because the manufacturer has arbitrarily decided to press a certain amount and no more. There's no logistical obstacle to doing so, however.

So, let me also add that I do not approve of ticket touts. The motivation and speculation on the part of the seller is the same, but the nature of the resource is different. A tout knows that every ticket he purchases for a popular gig will deprive a fan of a place at the concert. I don't think the same can be said of someone who buys some CDs for sale on eBay, because it can reasonably be assumed that a CD not explicitly marketed as a limited edition will be continuously available for as long as there is demand.

Someone who goes there to buy 10 copies obviously has more concern with the potential economic benefit of the album than the spiritual, aesthetic value of the music. Personally, i would prefer to see the album go to someone who wants to listen to it and not sell it!


Wholeheartedly agreed.

Reminds me of whenever I buy an album from a second-hand record shop. I always feel like a bit of a cheat. Sure its cheaper for the customer, the artist has already sold that unit and been paid, but really they have lost out on gaining a potential new buyer. :(


If you like the album, though, you're likely to buy another one, perhaps brand new this time; or attend a concert; or rave about the album to friends, who then buy their own copy or attend concerts. I wouldn't feel bad about this, if I were you. Any sale supports the artist, be it directly or indirectly.

Before anyone goes out and spends too much, from what i know, there are left over copies of the CDs


That's certainly good news. Out of interest, do you know how large the run was of the first pressing? I'm curious how many copies there are. And do you happen to know what percentage were sold? I understand if that's privileged information.

Cheers.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:10 am
by kc28kenneth
To ianmacd:

What we had originally written was:

kc28kenneth wrote:True, but it is no coincidence that no one mentioned the possibility of there being copies remaining to be sold later on at the standard price. They're not lying, of course. They're simply exploiting the fact that most people wouldn't know.


ianmcd wrote:How many of those sellers do you think even know this? You're assuming they all read this forum.


Your reply was in answer to the failure to mention copies would be sold later at the standard price - no reference to any website. Your "this" obviously referred to the selling of CDs later at the standard price (which is what I wrote), and not specifically through the website. If by "know this" you were referring to what I wrote, you will notice that I did not mention websites. Therefore this is enough proof that I did not misrepresent you.

In any case, through the website, through other channels, what difference does that make?

Regarding not bothering to check whether a point was relevant to a particular argument, being a shame because I would know you are right, well, of course you think you are. Everybody thinks he’s right. It just happens that, like I already said, I won’t bother to argue my case anymore, since it is in any case not that important that it warrants days of debate. You’re of course free to think that I’m wrong. Who’s stopping you?