Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

The Community Perspective on Reselling

1343537394058

Comments

  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588

    About 2 weeks ago my wife and I went to Walmart and they had 12(twelve) 6868 Hulk sets for $35 and 6(six) 6862 Superman sets for $13... I thought about this thread and convinced her to not buy all of them, so she bought 6 of the Hulk sets and 3 of the Superman sets... We went back to that same Walmart last Tuesday and they still had the 6 Hulk sets and 3 Superman sets so we bought them all...

    Was this unethical..?

    I would have way less of a problem with this then had you taken them all the first time because you did allow others a chance to purchase them.

    Some AFOLs here are really petty with their political correctness

    In my experience, people are generally more "moral" on the Internet than they are in real life.

    Many people say they would turn in $100 found on the ground, and while some people would, I believe fewer would in real life than would say they would here.

    Which is fine, people are emotional funny creatures that like to live in their self-delusions.

    And I don't make any claims to be exempt from that. :)
    Thats true of anything on the internet. people act tougher, smarter, funnier ect ect. That 100 dollars couldnt buy a thing that would override the fact I personally would feel bad about taking the money. To me, It's borderline stealing. To others, it's no different then finding a penny on the ground.

    If you feel I'm being fake self rightous then so be it, nothing I could say would change that.

    Amazing, that people participate in capitalism and then complain that capitalism is unethical. Capitalism is not unethical and in fact is opportunistic; neither of which are illegal.

    By the way, Lego is a business that is capitalistic. In fact, what business isn't? You'd think some of you were debating which countries in the world get clean water, food, and medicine.

    Some AFOLs here are really petty with their political correctness and finger pointing comments which kind of makes them look very hypocritical.

    Just because I participate in things doesn't mean I agree with how they are run. I think Capitalism is OK, the problem is blind capitalism that removes anything except the concept of profit from the equation. That's why there are EPA laws and consumer protection laws and why labor unions were formed and why OSHA is a thing. Because to increase profit companies and owners would screw over anyone or anything to do so.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,404
    pvancil27 said:

    Thats true of anything on the internet. people act tougher, smarter, funnier ect ect. That 100 dollars couldnt buy a thing that would override the fact I personally would feel bad about taking the money. To me, It's borderline stealing. To others, it's no different then finding a penny on the ground.

    I personally feel it also depends on the situation.

    As noted by someone else, if you actually see the person drop it, you'd be pretty low to pocket it and run off, and I think most people would hand it back.

    OTOH, if you're just walking along with no one around and $100 is on the ground, what are you going to do, drive to the police station? I highly doubt more than one or two people out of a hundred would do that.
    pvancil27 said:

    I think Capitalism is OK, the problem is blind capitalism that removes anything except the concept of profit from the equation. That's why there are EPA laws and consumer protection laws and why labor unions were formed and why OSHA is a thing. Because to increase profit companies and owners would screw over anyone or anything to do so.

    ^ Mostly this...

    It is Government's job to set the ground rules by which everyone has to play, taking into account the general welfare and safety of society. It is then private companies job to make as much profit as possible, while playing within those rules as set.

    Since it isn't illegal to buy up all the clearance sets from a retail shelf, that is playing within the rules and thus allowed. Granted, I don't think anyone is disputing that it is legal, just some people don't like it.

    Fair enough... :) Everyone is entitled to their own opinions...
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,404
    More power to you, that is probably what you are supposed to do.

    Just curious then... how far down do you take that? A £20 note? £5? £1?

    What is the cutoff between "doing the right thing" and, "finders keepers"?

    I know that personally if I saw someone drop a penny, I of course would hand it back to them. If I found a penny, well, I frankly might not bother to pick it up. :)

    But I'd keep it if I did.
    greenwithenvy
  • LobotLobot UKMember Posts: 1,021
    In a moment of stupidity I once left £50 in a cash machine, even though I collected the card AND receipt!! I realised what I'd done a couple of minutes later and went back, alas the £50 had walked.

    Someone had a good day and, to be honest, I couldn't blame them. I put it down as my good deed for the year :-)
    LegoFanTexasPitfall69
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,331
    The thread started with resellers assuming people who didnt like reselling were simply jealous, now they are suggesting in reality we aren't as moral as we claim, ie that we are lying.

    However that claim falls down, not just because someone here has taken a 50£ note to the police but also because anyone who passed on a minecraft set before Christmas last year effectively did leave 'money on the floor'.

    Perhaps it's inevitable that we all try to project our own moral compass onto others and their actions just as we usually see our moral judgement as the right one.


    @LFT There was a time when businesses didnt have to have the govt legislate a baseline. When businesses created a profit whilst also looking after their staff, community etc. Even then govt legislated for an absolute minimum standard - what you must do rather than what you should do. Much of the problems of the last 6 year's are because of that change.



  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,550

    The thread started with resellers assuming people who didnt like reselling were simply jealous, now they are suggesting in reality we aren't as moral as we claim, ie that we are lying.

    I don't think that anyone's claiming you're liars. They're merely pointing out that the "morality" that is being used to justify your position isn't really morality nor is it rooted in actual behavior so much as unrealistic hypothetical examples.

    However that claim falls down, not just because someone here has taken a 50£ note to the police but also because anyone who passed on a minecraft set before Christmas last year effectively did leave 'money on the floor'.

    Hardly sufficient to claim morality by a group, especially in the second case.

    Perhaps it's inevitable that we all try to project our own moral compass onto others and their actions just as we usually see our moral judgement as the right one.

    The problem is that this isn't an issue of morality at all on either side of the discussion. There are those who keep trying to claim so but their concept of what constitutes "moral" behavior is subjective and not applicable beyond themselves.

    @LFT There was a time when businesses didnt have to have the govt legislate a baseline. When businesses created a profit whilst also looking after their staff, community etc. Even then govt legislated for an absolute minimum standard - what you must do rather than what you should do. Much of the problems of the last 6 year's [sic] are because of that change.

    It's been going on a lot longer than six years. It's been going on longer than sixty years. In fact, until government stepped in and workers organized, businesses exploiting their labor to the tune of virtual slavery was quite common. Over time there have been businesses which did do a good job of trying to provide more than the minimum for their employees and even customers. But as labor laws were weakened by the greedy, keeping up with the kind of profits that total disregard for anything but took over. Here in the States this resurgence of disregard started in the 1980s Reagan era though the roots were in place before that; Reagan merely gave them a voice and support.
    vitreolumLegoFanTexasPitfall69
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588

    More power to you, that is probably what you are supposed to do.

    Just curious then... how far down do you take that? A £20 note? £5? £1?

    What is the cutoff between "doing the right thing" and, "finders keepers"?

    I know that personally if I saw someone drop a penny, I of course would hand it back to them. If I found a penny, well, I frankly might not bother to pick it up. :)

    But I'd keep it if I did.

    I'd probably turn in a 100$ bill to the police because it is the right thing. a 50 most likely. 20 becomes in my mind where it's questionable. If it was in a store, I would. If I found it in a park, I might pocket it.
    LegoFanTexas
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,479
    edited August 2013
    prof1515 said:


    Perhaps it's inevitable that we all try to project our own moral compass onto others and their actions just as we usually see our moral judgement as the right one.

    The problem is that this isn't an issue of morality at all on either side of the discussion. There are those who keep trying to claim so but their concept of what constitutes "moral" behavior is subjective and not applicable beyond themselves.

    Isn't that what @cheshirecat is saying? We all have an idea of what is right and what is wrong, but that differs from person to person. That is, we all have intentions and do actions, and hopefully do what is right (to us). Those feelings (our moral compass) are subjective.

    If I ask someone to collect me a cheap set as I want to build it and they sell it to me at no profit, then I sell it on for profit, I have not done anything illegal. However (to me) morally that is wrong. I have got them to give up the profit they could have made selling it themself, just so I could make the profit. That is an abuse of trust. If that person found out I had sold it instead, then I doubt they would want to help out again in future.

    Someone else can hold the alternative view that when they purchase something it is theirs to do with whatever they want, no matter how they got the discount on it. Not being honest about why they wanted it is just another way of getting a discount. In their mind, they have done nothing wrong - they have just played the game to maximise their wealth at the expense of someone else. Of course that is subjective. Morals are subjective.
    cheshirecatsidersddCoolsplash
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,331
    1. No it's not hypothetical, some of us, no many of us left 41999s on the shelves, stuck to buying limits etc, others have said that they were incapable of that. Aside from a couple of notable exceptions people were very aware at the start that 41999 would be immensely popular and easy money. Anyone who didnt take advantage despite that knowledge is putting these moral judgements into practice despite what LFT and others say doesn't happen.

    2. No, but to disparage a group by saying their stated morality is less than their actual morality when it can be proofed to be untrue is the issue.

    3. No, again you see it as being amoral, others see it as being immoral. (for me flipping minecrafts, 41999s etc rather than clearing clearance shelves).

    4. Indeed, you'll see I said the problems occurred in the last six years not that the change occurred in the last six years.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,331
    Out of interest what would other resellers think/assume of a reseller downplaying 41999. Are they:

    Just a very bad reseller that should get out of the business for their own sake.

    A player gaming the system for their own ends and fair enough.

    Doing something not acceptable within a lego fan community and/or a reseller community.

    Just a hypothetical of course.
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    I think the biggest problem with morals arguments is not so much we try and put our morals on someone, as much as it's hard to understand how someone else has their morals aligned differently. No matter how much it gets told or explained to me, I will never be able to morally understand how people put their own self fiscal gain over the concept of following the rules. And vice versa that re-seller will never understand how I can pass on profits because of some "misaligned" moral code.
    CCCLegoFanTexas
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,937
    edited August 2013
    pvancil27 said:

    I think the biggest problem with morals arguments is not so much we try and put our morals on someone, as much as it's hard to understand how someone else has their morals aligned differently. No matter how much it gets told or explained to me, I will never be able to morally understand how people put their own self fiscal gain over the concept of following the rules. And vice versa that re-seller will never understand how I can pass on profits because of some "misaligned" moral code.

    Nobody's trying to convince you of anything, nor have they been for hundreds of notes.

    And to what rules are you referring? Are you talking about buying three #41999's and flipping them, or are you talking about reselling in general? If reselling in general, there are no rules being broken here. If you're talking about the "buying more than allowed" rule being broken, I can't write much more than you're just going to have to suck it up, because a) some rules are more lame than others and b) there will always be people who break the rules whether they are lame or not.
  • jasorjasor United StatesMember Posts: 839
    edited August 2013


    In my experience, people are generally more "moral" on the Internet than they are in real life.

    pvancil27 said:


    Thats true of anything on the internet. people act tougher, smarter, funnier ect ect.


    Just to be clear, not everyone is, though. I'm exactly like this in real life. Cotton mustache, and all. :)

    All people have different perceptions and, in most cases, when those perception circles overlap...that is what falls into a shared area called "normal."
    It has nothing to do with an actual normality, but multiple perceptions create that reality.


    Ex: One person is regarded by 20 people as "uncool." That person is also quietly a big proponent of said "cool," and helped others to attain "cool."
    In the shared perception of those 20 people, it doesnt matter. The reality is, for all intents and purposes, that person is "uncool."


    Perception is everything. Presentation is paramount. Reality is subjective. Morals, behaviors, etc. All something in the middle of a Venn Diagram, that is moderately shared. What everyone should be watching are all the other intersections that make us the same.

  • binaryeyebinaryeye USMember Posts: 1,790

    OTOH, if you're just walking along with no one around and $100 is on the ground, what are you going to do, drive to the police station?

    Why not leave it there? What makes it yours to take simply because someone misplaced it? If you were to find a child's toy on the sidewalk, would you take that? What makes money different?

    I highly doubt more than one or two people out of a hundred would do that.

    Likely true. But what if the first two people to come along are those that don't take it, and the third person is the one who lost it in the first place? Sure, there will always be a couple people who will take it. But the fewer of those type of people there are, the more likely the person who lost their money will get it back.

    I pass up $1 bills lying on the ground without even hesitating. I've passed $5 bills and $20 bills. I once even found an open envelope with at least three $50 bills in it and walked on by. If it's not mine, it's not mine. I'm not saying this to claim some moral superiority; I'm simply stating that's how I work because I wouldn't feel right with myself otherwise.

    That said, this example of finding money on the ground has nothing to do with reselling. First, money has an obvious value to anyone except the very young. A discounted LEGO set sitting on a shelf does not have obvious value. It takes some amount of knowledge to know whether it has value, and that knowledge is something a reseller has earned (at however little cost in time). Secondly, the money on the ground is not being offered for sale. A discounted LEGO set is being willfully offered for something in return by the current owner.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2013
    binaryeye said:

    That said, this example of finding money on the ground has nothing to do with reselling. First, money has an obvious value to anyone except the very young. A discounted LEGO set sitting on a shelf does not have obvious value. It takes some amount of knowledge to know whether it has value, and that knowledge is something a reseller has earned (at however little cost in time). Secondly, the money on the ground is not being offered for sale. A discounted LEGO set is being willfully offered for something in return by the current owner.

    This. If we're going to say that the inability to pass on discounted LEGO sets on a shelf is just like the inability to pass money on the ground, then let's see how well reseller behavior holds up when we equate LEGO sets to food.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    There may be some morality involved, but I think a lot of it is much simpler than that.

    Here's a hypothetical scenario: You find two identical LEGO sets on a retail shelf and decide to buy both. You put them in your cart, just as two people approach you at the same exact time, both asking if they can have a copy. You decide to give up one, but you have to choose to whom you will give it. Neither will be upset with your decision.

    The first person tells you they are going to build it.
    The second person tells you they will keep it and sell it later for profit.

    To whom do you give it, and how do you decide? There obviously is no wrong answer.
    legomatt
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,404
    edited August 2013

    @LFT There was a time when businesses didnt have to have the govt legislate a baseline. When businesses created a profit whilst also looking after their staff, community etc. Even then govt legislated for an absolute minimum standard - what you must do rather than what you should do. Much of the problems of the last 6 year's are because of that change.

    No, I'm sorry, but that isn't true. 100 years ago Standard Oil had to be broken up because of the horrible way it was treating everyone. Textile mills gained unions because they treated their employees like dirt. Companies used to polute right and left until the EPA came along. Slavery used to be legal, indentured servitude was acceptable, etc.

    So the "good old days" are really an illusion, they weren't so good quite frankly.
    nkx1binaryeyeBrickarmorPitfall69JP3804cardgenius
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,404
    pvancil27 said:

    I think the biggest problem with morals arguments is not so much we try and put our morals on someone, as much as it's hard to understand how someone else has their morals aligned differently. No matter how much it gets told or explained to me, I will never be able to morally understand how people put their own self fiscal gain over the concept of following the rules. And vice versa that re-seller will never understand how I can pass on profits because of some "misaligned" moral code.

    Regarding the rules... Consider that some rules are written to make things even or fair, but other rules are written to give someone an advantage.

    Not every rule in life is worth following, sometimes you can and should break the rules. The trick is knowing when that time is. :)

    The rule on purchase limits is not really written to be fair to customers, it is written for the best interest of and profit of TLG. This is not food and water we are talking about, it is plastic toys. TLG wants to make as much profit as it can, and so do I.

    So because of that, it is all fair game.

    That would not be the case if this were about life essential items such as food or water, those should be protected against unlimited profiteering.
    greenwithenvy
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 20,479
    rocao said:

    There may be some morality involved, but I think a lot of it is much simpler than that.

    Here's a hypothetical scenario: You find two identical LEGO sets on a retail shelf and decide to buy both. You put them in your cart, just as two people approach you at the same exact time, both asking if they can have a copy. You decide to give up one, but you have to choose to whom you will give it. Neither will be upset with your decision.

    The first person tells you they are going to build it.
    The second person tells you they will keep it and sell it later for profit.

    To whom do you give it, and how do you decide? There obviously is no wrong answer.

    It is a trick question. You buy the two sets then sell both people a set for 3xRRP. I'm learning ...

    pvancil27vitreolumFollowsCloselycheshirecatYellowcastleGothamConstructionCoBlueMoonUSAlegomatty2josh
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    tensor said:

    pvancil27 said:

    I think the biggest problem with morals arguments is not so much we try and put our morals on someone, as much as it's hard to understand how someone else has their morals aligned differently. No matter how much it gets told or explained to me, I will never be able to morally understand how people put their own self fiscal gain over the concept of following the rules. And vice versa that re-seller will never understand how I can pass on profits because of some "misaligned" moral code.

    Nobody's trying to convince you of anything, nor have they been for hundreds of notes.

    And to what rules are you referring? Are you talking about buying three #41999's and flipping them, or are you talking about reselling in general? If reselling in general, there are no rules being broken here. If you're talking about the "buying more than allowed" rule being broken, I can't write much more than you're just going to have to suck it up, because a) some rules are more lame than others and b) there will always be people who break the rules whether they are lame or not.
    I have no idea where this came from in regards to my post, but... ok....

    And the rules might be lame, but they are still rules. Seatbelt laws are idiotic and its stupid they are trumpeted in the name of safety and yet not installed or used on school buses. But its still a law, You can choose not to follow it but dont be mad if you get a ticket. You can choose to ignore limits on Lego, but dont be surprised when a forum for collecting Lego doesn't take it well.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290

    The rule on purchase limits is not really written to be fair to customers, it is written for the best interest of and profit of TLG. This is not food and water we are talking about, it is plastic toys. TLG wants to make as much profit as it can, and so do I.

    So because of that, it is all fair game.

    In this case, stated this way, you are not a customer; you are a competitor. LBR says their retail operation is for customers and not resellers.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,404
    rocao said:

    There may be some morality involved, but I think a lot of it is much simpler than that.

    Here's a hypothetical scenario: You find two identical LEGO sets on a retail shelf and decide to buy both. You put them in your cart, just as two people approach you at the same exact time, both asking if they can have a copy. You decide to give up one, but you have to choose to whom you will give it. Neither will be upset with your decision.

    The first person tells you they are going to build it.
    The second person tells you they will keep it and sell it later for profit.

    To whom do you give it, and how do you decide? There obviously is no wrong answer.

    The first one of course...

    Which is not logical, but we are funny, emotional creatures, and I'm no exception. :)
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,404
    rocao said:

    In this case, stated this way, you are not a customer; you are a competitor. LBR says their retail operation is for customers and not resellers.

    Right... But we have no other choice since they told resellers they didn't want to do business with us.

    You have said over and over that TLG doesn't *have* to do anything for resellers. You're right, they don't.

    However... If they wish for us to change our behavior (meaning resellers in general), then they have to offer something, we aren't going to change for free.

    Many people have posted "why should TLG offer resellers any kind of discount or work directly with them", and that is the simple answer, it is how they buy their behavior change.
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    edited August 2013

    pvancil27 said:

    I think the biggest problem with morals arguments is not so much we try and put our morals on someone, as much as it's hard to understand how someone else has their morals aligned differently. No matter how much it gets told or explained to me, I will never be able to morally understand how people put their own self fiscal gain over the concept of following the rules. And vice versa that re-seller will never understand how I can pass on profits because of some "misaligned" moral code.

    Regarding the rules... Consider that some rules are written to make things even or fair, but other rules are written to give someone an advantage.

    Not every rule in life is worth following, sometimes you can and should break the rules. The trick is knowing when that time is. :)

    The rule on purchase limits is not really written to be fair to customers, it is written for the best interest of and profit of TLG. This is not food and water we are talking about, it is plastic toys. TLG wants to make as much profit as it can, and so do I.

    So because of that, it is all fair game.

    That would not be the case if this were about life essential items such as food or water, those should be protected against unlimited profiteering.
    There are rules and laws that should be broken, when they are unjust and unfair. (BLAH BLAH LIFE ISNT FAIR BLAH BLAH) The only thing unjust or unfair about limits with Lego is people who break them.


  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,331
    Seatbelt laws are idiotic and its stupid they are trumpeted in the name of safety....

    Sorry to go off topic but Which bit of seatbelt rules? I used to work for the transport research laboratories in the UK and unless this is some wierd US law or lack of clarity/conformity then im intetested in what you are thinking.

  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,331
    @LFT how do purchase limits increase LEGOs bottom line? surely if they were not interested in being fair to the consumers they would be happy for you to just buy all their stock quickly (talking about non discounted sets here).
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    By creating customers. Their revenue on set 41999 would be the same if they sold them all to 20000 people or all to LFT, but the next set would be bought by less people. Dunno if thats where LFT came from but I get his point.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,404

    @LFT how do purchase limits increase LEGOs bottom line? surely if they were not interested in being fair to the consumers they would be happy for you to just buy all their stock quickly (talking about non discounted sets here).

    It protects their brand image by not having hot, in demand items go out of stock.

    Minecraft was a blow to their image last year, they don't want a repeat of that, and I completely understand that.

    They would rather make a thousand Moms happy than 10 resellers. It is better for business in the long run.
  • vitreolumvitreolum RomaniaMember Posts: 1,406

    @LFT how do purchase limits increase LEGOs bottom line? surely if they were not interested in being fair to the consumers they would be happy for you to just buy all their stock quickly (talking about non discounted sets here).

    You give them too much credit, it's not about being fair, it's about keeping their production up with demand (both from customers and retailers). If they were capable of producing 10x more sets than they are, they would definitely prefer selling xx sets at once than limit them to two. Just look at the limit of 99 for halloween poly as an example. What do you think opening that factory in China is all about?
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2013

    The rule on purchase limits is not really written to be fair to customers, it is written for the best interest of and profit of TLG.

    The purchase limit seems quite fair to the overall customer base. More people will get sets. Of course this is also beneficial to TLG since it keeps overall customer satisfaction higher and brings back customers, but they also do it at a risk of not selling their merchandise.

    You say that rule is not fair, and thus should be broken. You are saying this as a competitor -- someone wishing to sell the same product they are. That is a moot point; the rule wasn't built or meant for you, because their retail operation isn't built and meant for you, either.

    However... If they wish for us to change our behavior (meaning resellers in general), then they have to offer something, we aren't going to change for free.

    Many people have posted "why should TLG offer resellers any kind of discount or work directly with them", and that is the simple answer, it is how they buy their behavior change.

    I posted previously that I agree that TLG could present an attractive opportunity so that resellers willfully change their behavior. That's not the only way, though.

    They could introduce a [email protected] TOS that said circumventing buying limits or otherwise being a confirmed reseller would result in legal action, and if they made good on that promise, I bet that would curb the behavior.

    They could also say that any items purchased over the limit must be returned and are subject to an astronomical restocking fee. I bet that would stop circumvention, too.
    caperberry
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,331
    Excellent so were all agreed that resellers, in particular those that circumvent limits or clear stock, are bad for TLGs bottom line, within the constraints of their current production and logistics capacity.

    Its probably not too much of a stretch to go from that to appreciating why the most likely readon for TLGs recent changes have been to protect their bottom line (what LFT states as the most important thing a business should ever do) threatened as you say by the behaviour of resellers.

    So, it is you guys we can thank for loss of discounts etc. Now what was the original question that started this thread again?
  • vitreolumvitreolum RomaniaMember Posts: 1,406
    ^ Of course, let's blame resellers again because TLG can't keep up with demand. :))
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    vitreolum said:

    ^ Of course, let's blame resellers again because TLG can't keep up with demand. :))

    No, lets put all the blame on Lego because it's easier to blame a faceless company then accept any personal responsibility for one's own actions.


    /sarcasm

  • vitreolumvitreolum RomaniaMember Posts: 1,406
    What actions? Purchasing something that is for sale? I'm perfectly fine with that, thank you very much.
  • nkx1nkx1 Member Posts: 719
    edited August 2013
    rocao said:

    They could introduce a [email protected] TOS that said circumventing buying limits or otherwise being a confirmed reseller would result in legal action, and if they made good on that promise, I bet that would curb the behavior.

    I'd be interested to know what tort law would apply, at least in the U.S. Is there a law stating you can't buy a toy and resell it? The first sale doctrine may apply, which would negate Lego's right to control the sale of the product after they put it on the market.

    Lego could hypothetically threaten legal action for anything; it doesn't mean any law exists that would facilitate that legal action.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,404
    rocao said:

    The purchase limit seems quite fair to the overall customer base.

    Of course it does, appearing to be fair is in TLG's best interest from a PR point of view.
    rocao said:

    You say that rule is not fair, and thus should be broken.

    Did I ever say it wasn't fair? It is perfectly fair, it is TLG's business to run as they please.
    rocao said:

    They could introduce a [email protected] TOS that said circumventing buying limits or otherwise being a confirmed reseller would result in legal action, and if they made good on that promise, I bet that would curb the behavior.

    They don't need a TOS saying that to do it, they can already sue anyone they want.

    But there are reasons they don't bring suit against resellers. For example, you have to be able to show damages to collect money. How exactly is TLG going to show harm when someone paid them their asking price for their product?

    Oh sure, you can say, "but little Timmy didn't get his plastic toy", but I think that argument will not go over in court nearly as well as it does here.

    It is so easy to say, "we'll sue", and so much harder (and expensive) to actually do it.
    rocao said:

    They could also say that any items purchased over the limit must be returned and are subject to an astronomical restocking fee. I bet that would stop circumvention, too.

    They can say anything they want, enforcing it is the challenge.

    If it were so easy to stop resellers, many, many manufacturers would have done it LONG ago...
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,404

    Excellent so were all agreed that resellers, in particular those that circumvent limits or clear stock, are bad for TLGs bottom line, within the constraints of their current production and logistics capacity.

    No, we are not agreed on this. :)

    Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad, depends on the situation.

    I agree that clearing the shelf of Minecraft last Christmas was nothing but harmful to TLG.

    However, clearing the shelf of PotC sets after Christmas? That doesn't hurt anyone and it helps the retailers being cleared (hence the term "clearance").

    So sometimes it is good, and sometimes it is bad.

    So, it is you guys we can thank for loss of discounts etc. Now what was the original question that started this thread again?

    I don't think the exclusive discounts is related to resellers, those are separate issues that are being joined by other people.

    The exclusives, I believe, is more about creating an image of a "premium" product, much like Apple does. Apple also doesn't want their products discounted, TLG is trying to create that same "flavor" with their big exclusive sets. (which really aren't all that exclusive when you consider how many retailers carry them)
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    edited August 2013
    vitreolum said:

    What actions? Purchasing something that is for sale? I'm perfectly fine with that, thank you very much.

    Edit: No reason to repeat myself again. You think you do nothing wrong, I do.

    Also sorry to everyone else for the snarky reply, just because you were sarcastic doesnt mean I should have.
  • CrowkillersCrowkillers Member Posts: 757
    edited August 2013
    rocao said:

    They could introduce a [email protected] TOS that said circumventing buying limits or otherwise being a confirmed reseller would result in legal action, and if they made good on that promise, I bet that would curb the behavior.

    They could also say that any items purchased over the limit must be returned and are subject to an astronomical restocking fee. I bet that would stop circumvention, too.

    What this would lead to is instead of Lego getting 100% of the money (since they are selling directly) to losing a good portion of the money when the buyer makes his/her purchases at Toys R Us or some other location...

    This doesn't seem like it would be a very smart business plan on Lego's part...

  • nkx1nkx1 Member Posts: 719
    edited August 2013
    To add to what LFT and I noted regarding Lego suing their customers, one only needs to look to RIAA and their litigious actions against customers to see how such actions influence people's perceptions of an industry. And RIAA actually had the law on their side. By many accounts, the lawsuits did little to curb behavior and proved to be a drain on resources. Yes, they collected $$ millions, but they also paid $$ millions pursuing the lawsuits. And nothing really changed, except causing a largely negative public perception of RIAA.

    One might also posit that music is far more important to society than a specific variety of plastic toys. I would think that Lego's reputation (and therefore profit) is far too important to them to risk it by suing it's own customers.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,937
    pvancil27 said:

    tensor said:

    pvancil27 said:

    I think the biggest problem with morals arguments is not so much we try and put our morals on someone, as much as it's hard to understand how someone else has their morals aligned differently. No matter how much it gets told or explained to me, I will never be able to morally understand how people put their own self fiscal gain over the concept of following the rules. And vice versa that re-seller will never understand how I can pass on profits because of some "misaligned" moral code.

    Nobody's trying to convince you of anything, nor have they been for hundreds of notes.

    And to what rules are you referring? Are you talking about buying three #41999's and flipping them, or are you talking about reselling in general? If reselling in general, there are no rules being broken here. If you're talking about the "buying more than allowed" rule being broken, I can't write much more than you're just going to have to suck it up, because a) some rules are more lame than others and b) there will always be people who break the rules whether they are lame or not.
    I have no idea where this came from in regards to my post, but... ok....

    And the rules might be lame, but they are still rules. Seatbelt laws are idiotic and its stupid they are trumpeted in the name of safety and yet not installed or used on school buses. But its still a law, You can choose not to follow it but dont be mad if you get a ticket. You can choose to ignore limits on Lego, but dont be surprised when a forum for collecting Lego doesn't take it well.
    My point was that note after note you write, you continually state how you can't/don't/won't understand or relate to resellers. I'm just wondering if you'll ever get to a point where you can accept reality as it is, or if you're just going to attack/snipe/be snarky to resellers on here until the end of time.
  • vitreolumvitreolum RomaniaMember Posts: 1,406
    pvancil27 said:


    Edit: No reason to repeat myself again. You think you do nothing wrong, I do.

    But you have a problem with something people do on a daily basis. Who do you thing goes to a store to purchase something thinking how will this affect the company and other customers? Do you do that?

    I'm sorry that I'm not fond of being accused for doing nothing out of the ordinary.
  • SirKevbagsSirKevbags Fairy Land Member Posts: 4,027
    @LFT In official communication to LUGS reselling has been cited as a reason for the removal of discounts. Now any of us can choose to believe that or not but it was said.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2013

    Did I ever say it wasn't fair? It is perfectly fair, it is TLG's business to run as they please.

    You said:
    "Regarding the rules... Consider that some rules are written to make things even or fair, but other rules are written to give someone an advantage. Not every rule in life is worth following, sometimes you can and should break the rules. The trick is knowing when that time is. :)"

    It sounds like you're saying:
    "Some rules are to make things fair, some aren't. Purchase limits are the latter, and that's why I choose to break them."

    Did I interpret you wrong?

    They don't need a TOS saying that to do it, they can already sue anyone they want.

    But there are reasons they don't bring suit against resellers. For example, you have to be able to show damages to collect money. How exactly is TLG going to show harm when someone paid them their asking price for their product?

    What if they don't want to collect money and instead just want you to stop? That's all they ever asked, isn't it?

    It is so easy to say, "we'll sue", and so much harder (and expensive) to actually do it.
    ....
    They can say anything they want, enforcing it is the challenge.

    If it were so easy to stop resellers, many, many manufacturers would have done it LONG ago...

    There's a difference here: LBR is a operating as a retailer and is not the manufacturer. TLG has a resell program. Anyhow, it still holds true that many retailers want to stop resellers. Perhaps, like most everywhere else, prudence decides which battles are worth fighting and which are not, but when those battles end up in a court of law, they nearly always are won by the retailer.

    As I've said before, perhaps reselling is more a nuisance than a business threat to TLG and so they haven't really bothered to deal with it. They do have rules against it, though. If TLG complains that you don't follow, then I understand how you might counter that it's up to them to enforce it.

    However, the complaints here aren't on behalf of TLG. People are complaining because some of the methods employed in reselling are a nuisance to them. Some of those practices are breaking the same rules they obey. Some of those practices appear to be causing new rules from TLG which further negatively impact them.
    cheshirecatYellowcastle
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,937
    edited August 2013
    rocao said:

    They are complaining because some of the methods employed in reselling are a nuisance to them. Some of those practices are breaking the same rules they obey. Some of those practices appear to be causing new rules from TLG which further negatively impact them.

    All good points. I say the same thing when I'm forced to wait behind someone with 15 items in the 10 items or less line, or when 20 cars cut in front of me because they didn't merge into traffic until the last possible moment of a lane closure. Of course, there's only so much I can do about it, and I choose not to go ballistic.

    There are rules, people break them and they always will break them - such is humanity. I choose to just let these small annoyances go and move on, regardless of how my life was impacted, because the alternatives are generally not worth it.
    Yellowcastle
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    vitreolum said:

    pvancil27 said:


    Edit: No reason to repeat myself again. You think you do nothing wrong, I do.

    But you have a problem with something people do on a daily basis. Who do you thing goes to a store to purchase something thinking how will this affect the company and other customers? Do you do that?

    I'm sorry that I'm not fond of being accused for doing nothing out of the ordinary.
    People lie on a daily basis, and it's not out of the ordinary. I have a problem with that too.

    And yes, I do think of others when I shop. For example, I enjoy chinese food, and love eggrolls. If I go to a buffet and there is two eggrolls left, I only take one.
    tensor said:

    My point was that note after note you write, you continually state how you can't/don't/won't understand or relate to resellers. I'm just wondering if you'll ever get to a point where you can accept reality as it is, or if you're just going to attack/snipe/be snarky to resellers on here until the end of time.

    I'm not sure where I have attacked re-sellers, but if I have I do apologize. And I really don't feel like I've been snarky (save the last comments to Vit) either.

  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    nkx1 said:

    I'd be interested to know what tort law would apply, at least in the U.S. Is there a law stating you can't buy a toy and resell it? The first sale doctrine may apply, which would negate Lego's right to control the sale of the product after they put it on the market.

    Lego could hypothetically threaten legal action for anything; it doesn't mean any law exists that would facilitate that legal action.

    I don't know the exact law, but businesses have the right to refuse service as long as they aren't based on discrimination (race, religion, appearance, etc).

    If you do a web search, I think about 50 million hits will show you this is the case.
This discussion has been closed.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.