| |
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:20:39 GMT, cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com (Mike Stanley)
wrote:
> Jasper Janssen <jasper@janssen.dynip.com> wrote:
> Wow, thanks.
Yeah well, you jibe at me, I jibe back. Can't help it.
> > think there's anything legally wrong with it (though, in the US court
> > system, who can tell?), but it's certainly morally wrong.
>
> Perhaps.
>
> So if 4 college roommates share a house they shouldn't each be able
> to cash in on the deal? But if each of them rents out a room within
Yes, they should.
> the house, giving them each a separate address (Apt 1-4) it might be
> ok? I still say there's some gray there, but it's mostly
It'd still be ok then.
> irrelevant, because I don't have to even risk soiling my conscience
> because I just have Rachael's Dad order something that is limited to
> "one per household".
The end result is the same, though. Therefore, in my opinion at least,
it is wrong.
> My point would be that the end result is the same. I get both DVDs.
Exactly.
> Now you could say that we're actually conducting a separate
> transaction after he completes his with the retailer, at no extra
> expense to me (except for maybe all the free computer support he
> needs) but that's just a mostly irrelevant middle step. In the end,
> both DVDs end up on my rack, with the retailer making the exact same
> amount from shipping them to two locations as if they had just
> shipped them to one.
A bit less, actually. And vastly less in terms of what he is trying to
achieve with his speial offer. The store owner is doing two things: a)
he's getting DVD critical mass, and b) he's giving himself a
reputation. Now, a DVD for a couple bucks probably costs the retailer
money, rather than making him any. He bears that cost because the
potential benefit, name recognition and critical mass, are important
to him. _But_ more than one DVD to a collection of DVDs from him has
very little marginal gain for him, therefore he limits the amount to
one. He limits it per household, rather than "per several people who
share their DVD collection", because the former is at least somewhat
controllable, and the latter isn't at all.
Legal? Probably. Morally defendable? Sure. Right? I don't think so.
This'll be my last long post on this issue, I think I've said
everything I want to say.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
178 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
