Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 greatbigtree wrote:

You can scalp an original price ticket for a greater value... sometimes. If the value of the ticket is less than the market will bear. Scalper inflated prices EXACTLY indicate that the MSRP is below market value. If it wasn't, the scalper couldn't inflate the price! People wouldn't pay it! You're making my argument by baselessly claiming the opposite. I can prove to you what the value is of a given commodity by determining what it will be purchased for. Limited release prices are lower than people are willing to pay, so scalpers can raise it and make money. The proof is right there. Claims to the contrary can be proven false by direct observation of reality.

Scientifically? The process of observing repeatable phenomenon, and drawing conclusions based on reason? Not making baseless claims without backup? Wherein a person can not declare their opinion without basis, and must then prove their point?

My argument can be proven, that the market will bear an intermediary [scalper] that inflates the cost of a specific commodity, therefore that commodity's value on the open market was less than it could be. Observable. Provable. Fairness is irrelevant. Entitlement is the only cause of a sense of unfairness in this situation.

The truth has to be slightly more nuanced than what you are observing- partially because you lack a control group. Yes, supply and demand are determining prices for scalped items (at least the ones that actually get bought- some overpriced stuff can sit on ebay forever).

However, the point at which the scalped prices are measured, the supply is no longer what it used to be, and that is because many non-scalpers found the product to be reasonable at the retail price and bought them.

For example- I can sell you a copy of Space Crusade for $250. If I do, that proves that $250 wasn't a terrible price, right? But does that mean that Space Crusade should have been priced at $250 back when I bought it in '92? No way, that'd be stupid. Maybe it would have sold a few copies to the people who found it to be worth it, and the many other copies would be collecting dust with the Atari Pacman. So there's something more going on here.

Selling a single item at a markup proves only that it was worth it to that one person at that time, and no more. It is quite likely that if Ticketmaster started selling at the scalped price, the concerts wouldn't sell out at all (because fewer people are willing to pay the inflated prices). Certainly some would, and some would not, right?

Of course, sometimes scalpers get screwed over too. Like those people who bought up tons of copies of Dreadfleet, or the 4th ed Space Hulk (both LE games were picked up by enough re-sellers that they can be bought well below their original retail price).



But the fact that this practice is illegal in some industries, and discouraged in many others should give us pause. Why is it illegal to do this with items that must, by their inherent nature, be limited in supply? Maybe there's something immoral going on that doesn't have to do with the economic feasibility of it all. It is possible that they're simply protecting a band or play hall's right to make things available to a poorer audience. Some bands intentionally underprice their tickets because they want less affluent people to be able to at least hope to attend (Pearl Jam fought with Ticketmaster over this in the '90s).


The economic feasibility of the practice only goes up as the morality of it declines. What I mean to say is, if people scalp food and medicine (both happen) I think the morality hits rock bottom. And yet, the economics of the situation soar. You make less money, but sleep better if the item is a less constant need (like soap). We could progress this by baby steps and reach people selling LE resin pinups from Kingdom Death. At some point it was totally immoral, and at some point I don't think it is anymore.


Then again, when I'm considering buying something of a luxury on EvilBay, I don't really care is a scalper is making money off of me. I care about whether I feel the product I'm getting is worth the price I'm paying (and if it is, I don't feel cheated). I've bought plenty of out of print minis and games, and I don't feel cheated.

Asterios wrote:
this is not about secondary market this is about something that is still visible on the GW website, so a consumer never had a chance to get an item from the GW website? where is a buyer not able to purchase from GW? considering the scalper was selling the items on a North American BST facebook page? where in North America is someone not able to order from GW ?, which is the same place the scalper got his items from? problem is the scalper ordered like 5-6 of an item thereby depriving 4-5 other people of getting that item at SRP, just so the scalper can turn around and sell the items for twice the price.

maybe you should know the facts before spouting off incorrectly.

by the way said scalper of said dice would not sell on eBay since at his prices they would not sell, so instead he would rather give the shaft to a community group instead.

also in your referance, where is this person who cannot buy from GW? tell me where is this mystical place at ?

Well using the UK as an example..... I was personally at work when the GSC dice went on sale. By the time I got home they had sold out..... so re-sale was pretty much my only option and I point blank will refuse to put money in the pocket of some scumbag scalper.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not about secondary market this is about something that is still visible on the GW website, so a consumer never had a chance to get an item from the GW website? where is a buyer not able to purchase from GW? considering the scalper was selling the items on a North American BST facebook page? where in North America is someone not able to order from GW ?, which is the same place the scalper got his items from? problem is the scalper ordered like 5-6 of an item thereby depriving 4-5 other people of getting that item at SRP, just so the scalper can turn around and sell the items for twice the price.

maybe you should know the facts before spouting off incorrectly.

by the way said scalper of said dice would not sell on eBay since at his prices they would not sell, so instead he would rather give the shaft to a community group instead.

also in your referance, where is this person who cannot buy from GW? tell me where is this mystical place at ?

Well using the UK as an example..... I was personally at work when the GSC dice went on sale. By the time I got home they had sold out..... so re-sale was pretty much my only option and I point blank will refuse to put money in the pocket of some scumbag scalper.

yes but wouldn't it have been better if GW put a limit on those dice of 1 or 2 per customer? so as to prevent run outs, companies like LEGO will put limits on their limited edition things and such so as to give more buyers a chance of getting them, instead of a few buying up a lot to scalp later.

morgoth wrote:
The whole premise is ridiculous.

Everybody in the world has access to credit cards or the equivalent (bank account + paypal or any number of alternatives), at least everybody who can afford GW stuff.

And every last one of these can order stuff online.

So where's your hypothetical customer now ?

Does the GW website accept Paypal these days?


And that doesn't address GW's insane international shipping charges, for those customers who don't have a national GW presence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

yes but wouldn't it have been better if GW put a limit on those dice of 1 or 2 per customer? .

Limits annoy people. There no doubt would have been legitimate customers who wanted multiple sets, and who would have been put off by not being able to buy them.

The better option would have been for GW to produce enough to actually fill the demand for them.

 insaniak wrote:

Asterios wrote:

yes but wouldn't it have been better if GW put a limit on those dice of 1 or 2 per customer? .

Limits annoy people. There no doubt would have been legitimate customers who wanted multiple sets, and who would have been put off by not being able to buy them.

I think it's worth it for items that are limited to slightly annoy a few legitimate customers for the sake of not artificially fething up the market for said item.

The reason you put purchasing limits on stuff is not just because of scalpers but also because you want as many different people in your customer base to enjoy the product even if it means a few weirdos who want to buy 10 of the item are slightly miffed.

 insaniak wrote:
The better option would have been for GW to produce enough to actually fill the demand for them.

Agreed, this is the ideal answer. Pair it with effective communication and GW would be seen as standing with rather than against their customers on this issue.

= Blanche-inspired Adepta Sorita sculpt situation

That should be the model for all of these cases going forward. I think that case is obviously a bit different in that it involves something GW itself can manufacture, unlike the dice. But it is a really great starting place and I hope they do that more in the future.

 insaniak wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The whole premise is ridiculous.

Everybody in the world has access to credit cards or the equivalent (bank account + paypal or any number of alternatives), at least everybody who can afford GW stuff.

And every last one of these can order stuff online.

So where's your hypothetical customer now ?

Does the GW website accept Paypal these days?


And that doesn't address GW's insane international shipping charges, for those customers who don't have a national GW presence.

if like me they have a PP card which is tied to their PP account, furthermore, you keep throwing in that high international shipping charges, what do you think the scalpers charge? pennies? I recently checked the cost to send a 4oz package to canada from here in the US and the price was nearly $10 for shipping alone, so GW's insane over seas prices may be more on par then you think.

don't even get me started on how much that same package is to places like Australia, shipping things to my family over there is like buying a small car or something.

Asterios wrote:
... furthermore, you keep throwing in that high international shipping charges, what do you think the scalpers charge?.

Considerably less.

Back when GW instituted their regional sales policy (forbidding independent sellers from selling to customers outside their own countries), rather than blocking overseas sales through their own website GW put in place ridiculously high shipping fees for international purchases in order to discourage people from buying internationally. As in, 60 pounds to ship a pot of paint sort of ridiculous.



So it's not at all a stretch to think that some potential customers may wind up better off paying an inflated sales price and realistic shipping costs, rather than mortgaging their house to pay GW's shipping fees.

 insaniak wrote:

Asterios wrote:
... furthermore, you keep throwing in that high international shipping charges, what do you think the scalpers charge?.

Considerably less.

Back when GW instituted their regional sales policy (forbidding independent sellers from selling to customers outside their own countries), rather than blocking overseas sales through their own website GW put in place ridiculously high shipping fees for international purchases in order to discourage people from buying internationally. As in, 60 pounds to ship a pot of paint sort of ridiculous.



So it's not at all a stretch to think that some potential customers may wind up better off paying an inflated sales price and realistic shipping costs, rather than mortgaging their house to pay GW's shipping fees.

and yet those same people could buy from retailers for about the same price almost, and I repeat last time I tried to ship a small 4 oz package to Australia to my cousin it cost me about $14 to ship it and that was the cheapest option too.

Asterios wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

Asterios wrote:
this is not about secondary market this is about something that is still visible on the GW website, so a consumer never had a chance to get an item from the GW website? where is a buyer not able to purchase from GW? considering the scalper was selling the items on a North American BST facebook page? where in North America is someone not able to order from GW ?, which is the same place the scalper got his items from? problem is the scalper ordered like 5-6 of an item thereby depriving 4-5 other people of getting that item at SRP, just so the scalper can turn around and sell the items for twice the price.

maybe you should know the facts before spouting off incorrectly.

by the way said scalper of said dice would not sell on eBay since at his prices they would not sell, so instead he would rather give the shaft to a community group instead.

also in your referance, where is this person who cannot buy from GW? tell me where is this mystical place at ?

Well using the UK as an example..... I was personally at work when the GSC dice went on sale. By the time I got home they had sold out..... so re-sale was pretty much my only option and I point blank will refuse to put money in the pocket of some scumbag scalper.

yes but wouldn't it have been better if GW put a limit on those dice of 1 or 2 per customer? so as to prevent run outs, companies like LEGO will put limits on their limited edition things and such so as to give more buyers a chance of getting them, instead of a few buying up a lot to scalp later.

i actually messaged GW suggesting such a thing. They just responded saying, due to high demand in future they would increase production run, however with dice specifically it's an issue due to them being made 100% out of house.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

The economic feasibility of the practice only goes up as the morality of it declines. What I mean to say is, if people scalp food and medicine (both happen) I think the morality hits rock bottom. And yet, the economics of the situation soar. You make less money, but sleep better if the item is a less constant need (like soap). We could progress this by baby steps and reach people selling LE resin pinups from Kingdom Death. At some point it was totally immoral, and at some point I don't think it is anymore.

Yeah.. but then how about all these medical companies jacking prices up just because the market can bear it, and condemning many to death by doing so ?

That's not scalping since the medical equipment or drugs never were affordable to begin with, but what about morality ?

Does it have anything to do with scalping ?

It's a normal and healthy part of capitalism.

One or two limited to one per customer things are alright, but when I see those guys that sometimes pop up with like over 50 and at about twice the price each I die a little inside. Because not only are they scalping, but as an oligopoly they're saying this is what the market will pay.

I have just read all four pages of this topic so far and have to agree with Great Big Tree. Scalping (a new term for me) is justified by those who pay the prices.
Is it inherently wrong? I'd say no. Is it morally wrong, I'd say yes.
It annoys me when I want to buy something that is out of stock, or even worse, no longer in production. I won't pay the inflated prices so I simply won't get it. But that doesn't mean I hate those people who have bought the items to sell them at the inflated prices.
Interesting topic though.

It is an inherent result of capitalism, but that doesn't mean it is a healthy part of capitalism. Often, the results of capitalism are unhealthy for the system, and even more often they're unhealthy for people.

It is rewarded by those who pay the prices, certainly. Although, as with any speculation investment, it can also go wrong (people with tons of 4th ed Space Hulk or Dreadfleet sitting around).

Consider why scalping isn't illegal in this situation. A company produces a limited run of something- the purpose is to increase immediate demand. Especially if they do not institute anti-scalping measures (buying limits, pre-order second runs) then it is a company that is encouraging scalping. So that next time, most customers will see the LE stuff and jump on it right away.

For concert tickets, the limited nature of the tickets is inherent, so there's nothing anyone can do to change that. But in the case of GW's LE production runs, the limited nature is entirely fabricated.

In this instance, Scalping is something the creators encourage (whether it is their intention or not, it is something GW is complicit in). In that case, if there's an ethical question, it may very well lie in the hands of GW.

 Huron black heart wrote:

Is it inherently wrong? I'd say no. Is it morally wrong, I'd say yes.

I'm curious- on what basis are you claiming it isn't inherently wrong if it is not a moral (ethical) basis?

I don't mean to be rude, I'd like to know your answer.

You know, I had really meant to stay out of this. I have said my piece, but here I am. A liar.

Nothing "Wrong" occurs, because no harm has been committed. It is a marketing ploy, that people fall for. Same as any other advertising gimmick. It is not a wrong to encourage people to purchase your luxury item. They choose how to spend their money.

GW creates an increased desire in their purchasers. That's not wrong. They sell their product to whomever buys it. That's not wrong. They make a profit on that sale. That's not wrong. A Scalper purchases the item, assuming a risk in doing so, in the hope that they can then resell the product at a higher price. That's not wrong. An end user decides whether or not to spend their money on that purchase. That's not wrong.

No moral wrong has occurred, at any stage. No one is harmed.

Instead, perhaps a young, fresh-faced gamer is really excited and manages to buy the limited edition product direct from GW at MSRP. Good for them. No one has been harmed.

For a wrong to have been done, someone would need to have been harmed... even financially... and that does not occur with scalping of a luxury item.


It is unethical, in a degree, as the amount by which the scalper profits seems to be out of proportion to the risk they've assumed, and the service they've provided. Whether appreciated or not, a service has been provided by the scalper, in that they've made the product available in a new venue. They've also assumed a personal risk, and in economic terms that must be rewarded. This profit is out of proportion, and thus the scalper is no doubt aware that they're profiting at the expense of someone else's increased costs, but that person is paying voluntarily, so there is no actual wrong.

morgoth wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:

The economic feasibility of the practice only goes up as the morality of it declines. What I mean to say is, if people scalp food and medicine (both happen) I think the morality hits rock bottom. And yet, the economics of the situation soar. You make less money, but sleep better if the item is a less constant need (like soap). We could progress this by baby steps and reach people selling LE resin pinups from Kingdom Death. At some point it was totally immoral, and at some point I don't think it is anymore.

Yeah.. but then how about all these medical companies jacking prices up just because the market can bear it, and condemning many to death by doing so ?

That's not scalping since the medical equipment or drugs never were affordable to begin with, but what about morality ?

Does it have anything to do with scalping ?

Drug companies in the UK have recently got into trouble for doing exactly that.

 greatbigtree wrote:
For a wrong to have been done, someone would need to have been harmed... even financially... and that does not occur with scalping of a luxury item.

That's an incredibly specific definition of "wrong" and I disagree with you in this context.

 greatbigtree wrote:
You know, I had really meant to stay out of this. I have said my piece, but here I am. A liar.

Nothing "Wrong" occurs, because no harm has been committed. It is a marketing ploy, that people fall for. Same as any other advertising gimmick. It is not a wrong to encourage people to purchase your luxury item. They choose how to spend their money.

GW creates an increased desire in their purchasers. That's not wrong. They sell their product to whomever buys it. That's not wrong. They make a profit on that sale. That's not wrong. A Scalper purchases the item, assuming a risk in doing so, in the hope that they can then resell the product at a higher price. That's not wrong. An end user decides whether or not to spend their money on that purchase. That's not wrong.

No moral wrong has occurred, at any stage. No one is harmed.

Instead, perhaps a young, fresh-faced gamer is really excited and manages to buy the limited edition product direct from GW at MSRP. Good for them. No one has been harmed.

For a wrong to have been done, someone would need to have been harmed... even financially... and that does not occur with scalping of a luxury item.


It is unethical, in a degree, as the amount by which the scalper profits seems to be out of proportion to the risk they've assumed, and the service they've provided. Whether appreciated or not, a service has been provided by the scalper, in that they've made the product available in a new venue. They've also assumed a personal risk, and in economic terms that must be rewarded. This profit is out of proportion, and thus the scalper is no doubt aware that they're profiting at the expense of someone else's increased costs, but that person is paying voluntarily, so there is no actual wrong.

that is why scalping certain things like tickets and such is against the law in certain places?

I'll admit, it's my own slicing of the pie, but it works for me. I would define Morality as the difference between right and wrong in stark terms. Black vs White. Ethics define the grey areas in between, or the value of actions without moral implication. Things you should or shouldn't do.

It is neither moral nor immoral to make a promise that you intend to keep. It is immoral to make a promise you intend to break.

If you make a promise in good faith, and good intention, but then find you're unable to fulfil your promise in the context of your abilities, you have several ethical options available to you on how to deal with that.

You could lie about it, and falsify evidence to appear to have fulfilled your promise. This could be immoral if your deception harms the deceived.

You could admit your inability to fulfill your promise due to the impracticality of completion. For example, you promise to complete a task in a given time, but later discover the investment of resources required to do so would be worse than not completing the agreement. This is neither moral, nor immoral, but highly ethical solution, to simply acknowledge the developing situation to the promised party.

You could acknowledge the inability to fulfill your promise, and offer to make some form of amends for that. This is ethical, and morally positive to attempt to compensate the "wronged" party in this case.


Laws are made in regards to Moral, Ethical, Religious, Financial, Conservation, Convenience and frankly any manner of reasons. One area of the planet may feel that the degree of profit made by a scalper is of such degree that the "dickishness" of doing so is too great, so it is outlawed. They might decide scalping creates an environment in which it is "too easy" to defraud people. There could be any manner of reason for outlawing the practice. But "unfairness" shouldn't be one, because it is impossible for the practice to be unfair. Someone purchases a product, and then does with it what they wish. It can't be unfair. It could only be unfair if someone was promised the dice, for example, as payment, and that payment was withheld. Or the dice were stolen, or an extortion attempt is made. These would be "unfair" denials of access to one's rightful property. But that's not the case with scalping. The scalper has rightful ownership of their property, and they offer to sell it at a price. Fair to them, fair to the public. Not nice, I'd say poor ethics, but not morally wrong.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
It is an inherent result of capitalism, but that doesn't mean it is a healthy part of capitalism. Often, the results of capitalism are unhealthy for the system, and even more often they're unhealthy for people.

It is rewarded by those who pay the prices, certainly. Although, as with any speculation investment, it can also go wrong (people with tons of 4th ed Space Hulk or Dreadfleet sitting around).

Consider why scalping isn't illegal in this situation. A company produces a limited run of something- the purpose is to increase immediate demand. Especially if they do not institute anti-scalping measures (buying limits, pre-order second runs) then it is a company that is encouraging scalping. So that next time, most customers will see the LE stuff and jump on it right away.

For concert tickets, the limited nature of the tickets is inherent, so there's nothing anyone can do to change that. But in the case of GW's LE production runs, the limited nature is entirely fabricated.

In this instance, Scalping is something the creators encourage (whether it is their intention or not, it is something GW is complicit in). In that case, if there's an ethical question, it may very well lie in the hands of GW.

 Huron black heart wrote:

Is it inherently wrong? I'd say no. Is it morally wrong, I'd say yes.

I'm curious- on what basis are you claiming it isn't inherently wrong if it is not a moral (ethical) basis?

I don't mean to be rude, I'd like to know your answer.

I probably didn't word that very well, and thought it didn't look right after I wrote it.
I meant that scalping isn't illegal, and for many it is simply seen as a way of making money.
It's not something I would do however as it just doesn't feel right.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I'll admit, it's my own slicing of the pie, but it works for me. I would define Morality as the difference between right and wrong in stark terms. Black vs White. Ethics define the grey areas in between, or the value of actions without moral implication. Things you should or shouldn't do.

It is neither moral nor immoral to make a promise that you intend to keep. It is immoral to make a promise you intend to break.

If you make a promise in good faith, and good intention, but then find you're unable to fulfil your promise in the context of your abilities, you have several ethical options available to you on how to deal with that.

You could lie about it, and falsify evidence to appear to have fulfilled your promise. This could be immoral if your deception harms the deceived.

You could admit your inability to fulfill your promise due to the impracticality of completion. For example, you promise to complete a task in a given time, but later discover the investment of resources required to do so would be worse than not completing the agreement. This is neither moral, nor immoral, but highly ethical solution, to simply acknowledge the developing situation to the promised party.

You could acknowledge the inability to fulfill your promise, and offer to make some form of amends for that. This is ethical, and morally positive to attempt to compensate the "wronged" party in this case.


Laws are made in regards to Moral, Ethical, Religious, Financial, Conservation, Convenience and frankly any manner of reasons. One area of the planet may feel that the degree of profit made by a scalper is of such degree that the "dickishness" of doing so is too great, so it is outlawed. They might decide scalping creates an environment in which it is "too easy" to defraud people. There could be any manner of reason for outlawing the practice. But "unfairness" shouldn't be one, because it is impossible for the practice to be unfair. Someone purchases a product, and then does with it what they wish. It can't be unfair. It could only be unfair if someone was promised the dice, for example, as payment, and that payment was withheld. Or the dice were stolen, or an extortion attempt is made. These would be "unfair" denials of access to one's rightful property. But that's not the case with scalping. The scalper has rightful ownership of their property, and they offer to sell it at a price. Fair to them, fair to the public. Not nice, I'd say poor ethics, but not morally wrong.

Well morality is understanding the distinction between right and wrong and living according to that understanding, and ethics is the philosophy of how that morality guides individual and group behavior. The two are closely related, with morality being the foundation of ethics. Your application there is completely wrong. The scalpers actions are indeed morally wrong as they're denying the product to others for their own financial gain, but ethically ambiguous due to the circumstance, aka anyone can do it and they're not breaking any laws and it depends if they went into the initial purchase with the intention of personal gain.

Fairness also is already represented in current consumer and purchasing laws, fairness is actually the driving force of laws and the justice system. In my new job in property I'm having to research a ton legislation due to the mess a previous employee made. You'd be surprise how often fairness is brought up.

The scalpers deny nothing, to anyone. They purchase a product, and sell it. If you can afford it, it's yours. Nothing is right about it, nothing is wrong about it. That is ethical, not moral. In GW's case, they also purchase the product from an outside company, and then resell them. GW are also defined as scalpers in this case, having added nothing to the process but being a middleman.

Fairness is only applicable in situations where something is due. Not one single person on this planet is "due" any access to fancy dice. Unless they are due that as payment, or, having paid for the dice, did not receive them.

You might want to re-check your legal definition of fair access. There is nothing unfair about scalping, and there is nothing immoral about scalping. Scalping takes advantage of market demand to make a profit. This might be a large or small profit. There could also be a loss. Nobody is owed access to a luxury item. It's the very definition of a luxury.

Not liking something does not make it unfair. A large number of people in general are unable to differentiate between a sense of desire, and a sense of deserving. Fair is applied to deserving. If I work for a wage, it is unfair to withhold my wage. If I then decide to spend my wages on fancy dice, I decide to pay the amount due to acquire them, or I don't. The luxury of fancy dice makes those dice more valuable to some, while gaining no value to others. I, personally, do not value fancy dice more than I value normal, reasonably average-rolling dice. I would not pay more for them. Others do value fancy dice more highly, and would pay a premium to acquire them.

Scalpers take advantage of this situation, and raise the price above MSRP. People that might have paid the MSRP, but are unwilling to pay the scalping price are not denied access to the dice any more than someone that would pay wholesale price but refuse to pay MSRP. Or someone like myself that would be unwilling to pay more than, say, $2 for 10 "nice" gaming dice. Is it unfair that GW charges more than that for their fancy dice, and that I'm denied access to them? Hardly. It is not unfair that a scalper resells the product for a higher value.

If you disagree with this assessment of fair value, please explain to me what the difference in fairness is between someone that would pay $6 for dice that MSRP is $12, and someone that would pay $12 but not $24 to access these dice.

People don't like it, but it's not unfair. As I've said, laws are made for any number of reasons. Unfairness does not apply in this case.

GW are also defined as scalpers in this case, having added nothing to the process but being a middleman.

No, GW produced the IP that they are using for the dice and then license an external company to make them. Even though GW are a middle man in the production line, the dice wouldn't exist without them both from the perspective of the IP being used and being the ones who paid the 3rd party to produce them.

Middlemen exist all over the place because they actually provide a service. The producer of the product doesn't want to deal with the end of the line customers and the customers don't want to deal with the producer, so a middle man steps in to provide the service of liaising. They also may provide the service of expertise.

I don't have anything against middlemen in general.

 greatbigtree wrote:
If you disagree with this assessment of fair value, please explain to me what the difference in fairness is between someone that would pay $6 for dice that MSRP is $12, and someone that would pay $12 but not $24 to access these dice.

Because one is natural market forces determined by the producer of the product and the purchaser of the product. The other unnatural forces influenced by someone who is amplifying a false scarcity and leeching off the market. At the very least scalping is not a respectable way to make money. Many countries DO have laws against scalping but they're generally not wide reaching enough to tackle products other than ticket sales and are difficult to enforce so it's left to the original sellers to come up with ways of combating it.

 Dropbear Victim wrote:
By scalping theyre taking away hobby budget that could have been spent on other things. They indirectly rob the producers and stockists via less sales of other stuff, and outright rob end consumers.

Not that simple. Producer gets same cash anyway and while you might arque others can buy less it can be arqued that the money goes to spending by the scalper.

I buy model from scalper. I have less money to spend on other stuff. HOWEVER that same cash is available on spending by the scalper.

Tough issue and there's also arqument that buying and selling for profit gives chances for others. I would have been unable to get into several concerts if it WASN'T for "buy tickets and sell them later(obviously for profit)". Because even without scalpers I doubt tickets would stay on sale for months ahead and buying tickets from Japan isn't easiest thing from outside Japan short of company doing buying and reselling. So if this activity would completely die it would actually hurt me because while yes tickets would be cheaper for me I wouldn't even be able to get them short of doing it even MORE expensive way by going to Japan specifically to buy ticket in advance(that costs likely 1000 euro or so all in all plus no pay holiday...)

 greatbigtree wrote:
The scalpers deny nothing, to anyone. They purchase a product, and sell it. If you can afford it, it's yours. Nothing is right about it, nothing is wrong about it. That is ethical, not moral. In GW's case, they also purchase the product from an outside company, and then resell them. GW are also defined as scalpers in this case, having added nothing to the process but being a middleman.

Both ethics and morality are subjective, there is no higher order moral authority to say which morality (or set of ethical principle) is the best.

Generally speaking, christians have a concept of fairness which is centered around being victimized, i.e. if anyone does anything that is bad for you, that is wrong of them, and you expect them to stop doing it because they believe the same.

The concept of fairness is immensely different for other cultures, many of which freely accept no copyright (China), purely financial manipulation without any value addition (...), etc.



Scalpers are most likely a lesser evil in a society where states levy arbitrary taxes on everyone and everything, intermediaries galore jack up all the prices, all big companies are into price fixing, many big companies don't pay any taxes where they produce and extract the value, etc.



What Scalpers mostly do is remove produce access from people with less means and offer it to people with more means.

Essentially, the rich are paying the scalpers implicitly to snatch the collector items for them.

Although the service is immaterial and decentralized, it's probably a good thing, like personal shoppers.



Don't worry, when the scalper is done selling to all the rich guys, if he has any stock left, he'll sell it to you at a more reasonable price.

Also, arguing against Scalping is arguing against nature: you cannot win.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Because one is natural market forces determined by the producer of the product and the purchaser of the product. The other unnatural forces influenced by someone who is amplifying a false scarcity and leeching off the market. At the very least scalping is not a respectable way to make money. Many countries DO have laws against scalping but they're generally not wide reaching enough to tackle products other than ticket sales and are difficult to enforce so it's left to the original sellers to come up with ways of combating it.

Ah, you see, scalping is exactly a "natural market force" as much as any other. That's how distribution works. I've gone over this before. If an end user is willing to pay an "uptick" on a product, another layer of distribution will develop, quite naturally. There is no such thing as "false scarcity". Scarcity exists, or it does not. If I were to purchase EVERY, SINGLE, PIECE of product that GW produces, and then sell it, I would be a distributor / reseller, yes? I would put an uptick on the product, and then sell it.

You assign moral weight to this process, where none exists. "Leeching" off the market is what all layers of distribution does. GW produces a product, for the sake of argument, in house, in Great Britain. They sell it to a distributor, perhaps another branch of GW in Canada, say. GW Britain makes a profit. GW Canada distributes to dealers within Canada, without advancing the value of the product but incurring risks and costs while doing so. They up the price, to make a profit. The dealer does the same, distributing to stores. The stores do the same, selling to customers.

If that customer now does the same, upticking the price having incurred costs and risks by purchasing the product, they're now a scalper, and they're a "bad guy"? Is it unfair that you can't purchase a product directly from GW Britain, before it even gets put in a box? That would eliminate all middlemen. It would even eliminate the need for packaging, if you brought a box to put it in. Why aren't the rest of the layers of middle men "bad" for doing as they do, but the scalper is "bad" for doing it? This is an entirely arbitrary assessment, based on an inability to differentiate between desire and deserving. If a person believes they DESERVE to purchase a product at MSRP, they will find it unfair that the scalper increases the price. But that's a false assessment of the situation. Nobody deserves to purchase a luxury item. They get to do that if they choose to, and pay the price to acquire it.

Sure, it's a scummy thing to do, but so is most of retail sales. Consider the ethical implications of making more on a commission to sell a product, than the person makes crafting the product. Consider the relative work loads.

Anyhow, while morality can be considered subjective, I disagree. I believe morality is directly related to evolutionary forces, and the primal recognition of a social animal's requirement to avoid harming the community. Again, I've already made my case for scalping not causing harm. If a person can't afford the price, they don't suddenly lose their money and become unable to purchase something else more affordable. Positive morality helps your social groups' ability to thrive. Negative morality harms your social groups' ability to thrive.

For everything else, there's ethics.

Here's a wrinkle to consider: FGS gets several copies of rare dice. They sit on the shelves for weeks because nobody locally either wants them or can afford them.
Like many FGSs, this one isn't raking in the cash so money tied up in stock that's not moving is a bad thing.

You want to help out your store and don't want to buy yet another copy of Prospero. If you buy a couple extra sets are you an ogre?

 greatbigtree wrote:
Ah, you see, scalping is exactly a "natural market force" as much as any other.

It's only as natural a force as society lets it be. If society deems that it's unfair, we legislate against it and/or show disdain for people who seek to earn money that way and/or companies institute policies that make it impossible (like disallowing multiple sales to a single customer on limited items).

Make limited editions one per person based on ID. Problem solved.

You want to buy 5 for your gaming group? Too bad, they can purchase it themselves if it's such a big deal.

Want to sell them online? Okay, but you're not going to get to keep the one you have to do it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Ah, you see, scalping is exactly a "natural market force" as much as any other.

It's only as natural a force as society lets it be. If society deems that it's unfair, we legislate against it and/or show disdain for people who seek to earn money that way and/or companies institute policies that make it impossible (like disallowing multiple sales to a single customer on limited items).

It's already seen as unfair. You're expecting lawmakers to actually do their job in the interest of the people.