Autograph Discussion

[LucyK!]

Probably taking that a little too literally...it's the difference between a person being able to buy the "thing" or not, whether the thing is tickets, merchandise, whatever...

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Wario

exactly. If you have a gorilla youd wanna poach it then set it free

And my wtf Warrio moment for the day ..

If I had a gorilla I doubt it would fit in a pan for poaching though

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Wario

Reselling an autograph at a higher price point is unethical, but it doesn't effect someone getting a ticket they deserve more. THeres no real negative impact reselling a legit signature for a higher price.

I disagree.
I could sell your house with you in it and everyone would be fine with that except you and your gorilla. Morally it would be wrong even if everyone else is fine with it.

There is a limited supply of these photos. It is not as if they were machine copied. Selling things on for the sole point of profiteering will most likely do someone out of something legit eventually. What I'm saying is you can allow it until the merch stall has no more photos to sell because they all went to profiteers etc. Ie. when/where do you stop. That's the whole point.

[CarylB]

Profiteering is morally wrong, and always has some impact surely? There may be differences in the scale of both .. eg arguably the most morally wrong with the biggest impact is the black market purchase and trading of relief food in countries where the people are starving. But arguing that ticket touting is worse or better than profiteering from signed items is a bit of an imponderable. Trying to quantify the impact of this or that form is not simple .. eg who's to say which potential loss is worse to an individual .. the ability to afford a concert seat closer to the stage, or an autographed photo? .. or whether a celebrity might be so irritated by profiteering from sales of something they have habitually either given and/or sold at a low and reasonable price, that they decide simply not to give or sell any in future? Point is you cannot necessarily judge the potential impact .. and it's pretty reprehensible imo, all of it.

[melon]

I tell ya what else is crap, taking crappy photos during the show, (with watermarks of the date still on them) and selling those on eBay! What tha?

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by Wario

exactly. If you have a gorilla youd wanna poach it then set it free

Wario, I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here!

Originally Posted by Wario

Reselling an autograph at a higher price point is unethical, but it doesn't effect someone getting a ticket they deserve more. THeres no real negative impact reselling a legit signature for a higher price.

I think you're kind of contradicting yourself here. I actually don't think it's unethical; I look at it like any other collectible. If you had an antique vase or something that you bought and sold for a higher price, there is nothing at all wrong with it. Autographs are considered collectibles by many people, and as such, are "worth" whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Now, that's not to say I approve of the kind of profiteering that Mouse gave in his example, where Meat signed a bunch of items out of the goodness of his heart. (Now I guess I'm contradicting myself somewhat )

Originally Posted by CarylB

But arguing that ticket touting is worse or better than profiteering from signed items is a bit of an imponderable. Trying to quantify the impact of this or that form is not simple .. eg who's to say which potential loss is worse to an individual .. the ability to afford a concert seat closer to the stage, or an autographed photo? .. or whether a celebrity might be so irritated by profiteering from sales of something they have habitually either given and/or sold at a low and reasonable price, that they decide simply not to give or sell any in future?

The big problem I have with ticket resellers is the fact that they often resort to unfair means, for example using bots to get tickets that fans then have no chance of getting. It's not a level playing field.

There was an infamous young man who used to follow Bruce around and pester him for autographs, which he often got (reportedly by resorting to some creative means and/or greatly annoying other fans to do so). At first I chalked it up to him just being a zealous young fan, but changed my opinion when his methods and the fact that he was selling and trading those autographs for concert tickets (and then cheating to get into the pit) came out. I wondered what Bruce might have thought if he ever heard what this kid was doing. I have seen cases where he blatantly refused to sign for obvious "professional" dealers, though he will almost always sign for fans.

They used to post copies of Bruce's handwritten setlists on his website, but that stopped, I suspect because someone had been printing them out and selling them on eBay. (The selling I know was true, not sure that is the reason they stopped getting posted)

Originally Posted by melon

I tell ya what else is crap, taking crappy photos during the show, (with watermarks of the date still on them) and selling those on eBay! What tha?

Do people actually do that? I can't imagine anyone would buy them.

[JennaG]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

Do people actually do that? I can't imagine anyone would buy them.

I don't know whether there's still any listed on eBay like that but there was at one point and what made it laughable was the asking price of something like £8.99.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[melon]

Originally Posted by JennaG

I don't know whether there's still any listed on eBay like that but there was at one point and what made it laughable was the asking price of something like £8.99.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Yup

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner