Capitalist ethics.

[AntiStateQuixote]

Speaking of Amazon, anyone know how long it takes them to refund the price difference? I just checked and, as DaveMage said, the price has gone down by around $5.

OffTopic

I've had two different pre-order price change situations with Amazon. In one case they charged me the original, higher price, and the very next day, through no action of my own, refunded the difference based on the price change. So, two transactions on my credit card.

In the other instance they charged me the new lower price on the original transaction at the time of shipment.

I'm not sure what was different about the two price changes, but my guess is that the one that required two transactions happened the same day or immediately before/after they shipped to me.

/OffTopic

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The ethics I was talking about are not those of the seller, but of the buyer.

But it really isn't an ethical responsibility of the consumer to police agreements between retailers, distributors and publishers. Asking distributors and retailers to abide by street dates - well you're gonna get what you pay for. It isn't as if street dates can't be well-policed though. Agreements can be arranged such that everyone involved prior to the consumer has economic interest NOT to violate the agreement (see the arrangements for enforcing street dates for the Harry Potter books). Violations may still happen but then it's kept (as it should be) an ethical matter for people OTHER than the consumer to worry about.

Somebody check me if I'm wrong but it's up to the PUBLISHER to set and enforce penalties upon distributors for prematurely shipping to retailers. The retailers agreements are with the distributors, not the original publishers. It's therefore up to the distributors to set and enforce penalties upon retailers who break THEIR agreements. It's generally not the ethical responsibility of the consumer - who has no control of these things - to monitor contractual agreements between everyone in the publishing pipeline. Capitalist ethics, after all, would suggest that, short of ethical violations becoming so egregious as to be MORAL violations, it is in the consumers best interests to buy at the lowest cost at the earliest convenience. If the publisher has OTHER interests at stake then it's the PUBLISHERS responsibility to arrange their affairs accordingly.

Someone WILLFULLY violating the street date isn't at all ethical, but the degree to which it is UN-ethical depends on the level of harm being done AND the details of the agreements regarding the street date. If there were no real penalities or means of enforcement it's in their short-term business interests to beat other retailers to market. If all they get is a few people buying from them instead of another retailer then it certainly isn't the consumers ethical responsibility to teach them a lesson. Besides, the ethical shenanigans are actually BAD business - not because of consumer reaction, but because by rights it should provoke a negative PUBLISHER/DISTRIBUTOR reaction. Only if violating the street date can be seen to be significantly harmful to the publisher, distributor, or other retailers should it become an issue for the consumer. As it is, the consumer still gets to weigh the early availability against actual costs. In comparing Buy.com to Amazon.com I see that at this moment Buy.com's price is $7.27 higher (not including shipping costs) even if they are violating the street date.

 

[Mark]

I'm soon-to-be eBaying a first edition thread of Chaucer's The Qwertybury Tales in Middle Ascii.

 

[Awakened]

Do I think that there is something morally wrong with getting the books early?
Ehh..probably not. This is pretty minor, and compared to the number of jerks I know who just jacked entire torrented libraries of 3.X stuff instead of, you know, actually giving a penny to the companies that are putting out the books they enjoy--it's very minor, indeed. The money and the product are exchanged early. This extra week or so is a symptom of a gross capitalistic/internet appetite for NOW NOW NOWisms, but I would hardly condemn a buyer for this faux pas.

That being said, I think WHERE you buy your books from does matter. With integrity listed as thus:
1. You buy it from a local store.
2. You get it online. We're not all made of money, 45% off sounds good to me.
3. You get a torrented pdf. Most people (me included) think you're an ass if you're not figuring on paying for them.
4. You get it from Wal-Mart, whose doorman proceeds to check your receipt at the door, reminding you of how little dignity you have left for giving your money to such an institution.

Seriously. Capitalist ETHICS does not equal "get your crap from everywhere, without a single care as to who you're supporting."

 

[hong]

I'm soon-to-be eBaying a first edition thread of Chaucer's The Qwertybury Tales in Middle Ascii.

Middle Ascii =
{R, T, Y, U,
F, G, H, J,
V, B, N, M}

 

[Arnwyn]

Just a quick point.

The ethics I was talking about are not those of the seller, but of the buyer.

It's the failure to exercise that power of ours that I was remarking on when I started this thread.

You would be incorrect.

Consumers have their own rules within a capitalist system. It is the responsibility - actually, duty - of a consumer to minimize the amount of their money they spend while maximizing value for their money (however they choose to measure that value - this is where different decisions will be made) as long as it is legal.

As per the Man in the Funny Hat above, it is not the responsiblity of consumers to police agreements between retailers/distributors - nor 'should' they. If it is legal to buy from Buy.com if they break the street date, then those who see value in getting their books as soon as possible should do so.

Great post, Man in the Funny Hat. Awakened had a great post, too. "+1", or whatever the kids on the internet say these days.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Also, a note about street dates and certain products and large retailers. Was in a Wal-Mart that had the midnight release of a Harry Potter book for one of my kids. While I was there I noticed another book that had broken its date by a week, when I asked the person running the book section, they were unaware of that books date because it wasn't well publicized. The Harry Potter book was being released correctly the lesser known book was just kind of thrown out there with their regular inventory. Once I pointed it out, they actually removed the book and marked it the release date on the box. (I was actually impressed.)

As noted before, often times its ignorance of the product and the date of release by the average Joe employee that leads to broken dates. If it is pointed out and then nothing is done about, that is when things are truly unethical, otherwise, its just a common human error. Also great quotes on the rules of capitalism, my economics professor would have been proud.

 

[Urbannen]

I completely agree with keeping street dates. But in my group, piracy is more of an issue.

Someone from my gaming group is torrent-crazy and has already downloaded and distributed to us copies of the 4th Edition rules on DVD. Personally I did not ask for it, but he included it with the Alpha Pathfinder rules, which I did want and which are freely available.

I am uncomfortable with the way he takes reams of RPG pages from the internet without spending a dime. We're playing City of the Spider Queen and he suggested that I just print out the adventure from the PDF he provided. I bought a real copy on E-bay.

That said, I do use the free downloads he's provided as reference. I use the PDF of CotSQ for printing maps and some stat blocks. The books my friend's downloaded are very useful when I'm researching some random part of the Realms or when I need stats on a creature that's mentioned in the module but which is in a supplement besides the MM. I can't see myself maintaining a library of 2E FR books as a reference or buying MMII just for one or two creatures.

If my group is using a particular book intensively, I feel at least one of us must own a physical copy. Downloads are convenient and I'll use them to sample or preview, but I would never print out an entire product as a download. Still, it's a fine line, because torrent downloads are piracy.

 

[rhm001]

You would be incorrect.

Consumers have their own rules within a capitalist system. It is the responsibility - actually, duty - of a consumer to minimize the amount of their money they spend while maximizing value for their money (however they choose to measure that value - this is where different decisions will be made) as long as it is legal.

Good point, but it doesn't automatically render the earlier post incorrect. "Value" is a subjective term (as you acknowledge!) determined by the market (i.e. the buyers). A buyer is free to decide that products offered by those who adhere to specific "ethical" business practices---honoring contracts, supporting their employees, using specific ingredients, manufacturing products in a specific area or nation, etc.---have a greater inherent value than those with a lower market price. There's a reason people buy more expensive organic food instead of brand name food, just like there's another reason they buy brand name food instead of cheap store brands. Exercising market power based on things other than price alone just means you're an active participant in the market. It doesn't mean that your ethics won't play a part in it.

Whether a buyer feels they have a duty to adhere to their own ethical standards will partially dictate their conduct in the market, rather than the inverse.

 

[Asmor]

Consumers have their own rules within a capitalist system. It is the responsibility - actually, duty - of a consumer to minimize the amount of their money they spend while maximizing value for their money (however they choose to measure that value - this is where different decisions will be made) as long as it is legal.

That is assuming everyone plays by the same rules, though. When you've got certain retailers breaking laws and contracts which all retailers are supposed to abide (including them), then it's certainly unethical to buy from those retailers.

The only difference between certain stores and a guy on the streetcorner with a trenchcoat full of watches is that it's more obvious that the guy on the corner isn't being scrupulous in his business practices.