Ragdrazi:
I don't pay for my library membership. Where you living?

Taxes, buddy. Oh, and the last library card I got had a $3 processing fee.

:::EDIT::: wait- I forgot to address this.... there ARE private libraries, Rag. Schools. M Y school in is a private school. If you want Library access after you've graduated, you have to pay $25 a year. So suckit.

::end edit::

I'm sorry, Ragdrazi, but with every post you are making less and less sense. You're the failed argument.

Ragdrazi:

Jimmyjames:

Hey, wait... are you a chick?

I see. You're sexist in addition.

No. I'm a man. You should try being one some time.

Or, I could be trying to insult you because I think you're a moron. You might not be a chick, but you're doing a really good impression of an idiot.

Merryjest explained EXACTLY what is TAKEN on a torrent. You either aren't reading carefully or are ignoring him. Or don't get it, being that you are in idiot.

Ok.... how does making Libraries exempt from copyright laws equal to DOWNLOADING COPIES THAT ARE ILLEGALLY POSTED ON TORRENTS?!?!?!?!

NOT. THE. SAME. THING.

:::Oh... I added to a post a couple clicks up::::

I forgot to address this.... there ARE private libraries, Rag. Schools. MY school is a private school. If you want Library access after you've graduated, you have to pay $25 a year. So suckit.

Ragdrazi:
You want to back that up with some kind of quote on something I didn't address there, or are you just here to talk out of your ass like you've been doing since post one. Probably slide out a little better if you didn't beat off the fucking caps lock key.

OK, how about this quote:

Ragdrazi:
And as we have clearly established nothing has been ~taken~ by a torrent, unless the "property rights" have to be so broadly defined as to include the idea of property. That's a ridiculous proposition.

It is YOUR opinion that "nothing has been taken by a torrent". THE LAW disagrees with you.

LIBRARIES HAVE FUCK-ALL TO DO WITH DOWNLOADING ILLEGALLY VERSUS FILE-SHARING.

And I wouldn't bother with caps if you actually read anything I posted.

And there are private torrents too. I will accept that in some red states the government doesn't place enough importance on education and is forcing people to pay for their library cars, but that's not how the system was meant to be.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How is that relevant.... AT ALL?!?

I don't live in a "red state". I live in California and went to a PRIVATE DESIGN SCHOOL. What does a red state have to do with that? Not to mention... you have to pay for a newsgroup server... and downloading from those is still illegal.. so what does paying for torrents prove? Are you saying that it somehow makes it more legal?

Ragdrazi:
If we're going to attack torrents for distributing free copies illegally, why does our own government give legal exemption to a system that not only does the same thing, but was ~consciously created to do the same thing~.

It. Was. Not.

I'm going to try one more time:

Libraries DO NOT DUPLICATE MATERIAL. They LOAN MATERIAL OUT. What you do with that material is up to your discretion, BE IT LEGAL OR NOT.

Torrents and file-sharing IS ILLEGAL DUPLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION. BY LAW, I.L.L.E.G.A.L.

Comparing libraries and torrent is like comparing apples and oranges.

So.....

Ragdrazi:

Jimmyjames:

Ragdrazi:
If we're going to attack torrents for distributing free copies illegally, why does our own government give legal exemption to a system that not only does the same thing, but was ~consciously created to do the same thing~.

It. Was. Not.

Ok. The historian from Princeton was lying to me in his book.

I'm done. I'm seriously done. I'm flat done with you.

Good. I'm sick of your misguided crap.

elpresidente:
I support the idea that downloading isn't exactly stealing. For example, a friend of yours buys a game, and then gives you a copy of it because he thinks you are an awesome pal. Has the the company the right to say to this guy: "Hey what are you doing? You are stealing money from us!"? File-sharing is basically this, only like someone with a 10 million awesome friends.

Yes, that's stealing. You didn't pay for it, and your friend doesn't have any right to give away copies.

elpresidente:
Lets do some math. Lets say that Fallout 3 sells 1 million legal copies at the current price of Ł37.99. This makes Ł37 990 000 for the company. Now at this price I wil not buy this game, despite being a big fan. And I can afford to buy it but it still seems ridiculously high.

The price tag on a 2008 Lamborghini Gallardo is around $186,000 USD. I'm a big fan of Lamborghinis, but I consider this price to be ridiculously high. By your thinking, I should be able to go into the showroom, throw $50 at the dealer and drive away with it without being arrested. I'm sure the police will accept the argument that I paid what I thought was reasonable is justified.

elpresidente:
Lets see what happens if the price drops a little. What if it was Ł20? Well, this is much better, but still too high for me. What if it was Ł10? Now this is a very good price for me, and I'd probably purchase the game immediately. What if it was Ł7 - I'd aready have it.

Now 1 million copies at the price of Ł7 isn't a big profit for the company. But you forget that the number of people like me who would now buy the game will rise dramatically. Let's say that 5 more million people like me decide that the price of Ł7 is super awesome and buy the game. 6 million copies time 7 equals Ł 42 million - this is Ł4 million more than the Ł38 million that the game will make with 1 million copies at Ł37.99 price. And what if all these 15 illegal downloaders per one legal decide that they can afford the price of Ł7 - the company will make Ł112 000 000. Pretty good, eh?

[sarcasm]And if you brought it down to Ł1, everyone on Earth could afford it, and that would mean potential profits of more than Ł6 billion. And there would never be piracy, because everyone could afford it. [/sarcasm]

Come back when you have a basic grasp of economics, please.

elpresidente:
Someone must make a simple research about what price the people are ready to pay for their games and make the according ajustments.

Of course, the reality is that the companies thinks that they could sell 16 million copies of a game at the price of Ł37.99 if only it wasn't for the damn pirates. Ha ha ha. Greed is funny thing.

They set the price based on what they expect to lose to cheapskates such as yourself who could afford it, but would rather not have to shell out any money if they could get away with it.

incal11:

TsunamiWombat:
It's still theft. And no, I havn't been reading your replies or thinking about my arguments at all.

Because it's theft. You are taking something. Something you usually would pay for. Except your not paying for it, your just taking it. Copywrite infringement is a form of theft. Wether or not you have deprieved them of ownership you have deprived them of the money they would aquire from selling it to you.

It's theft.

incal11:
What if I live in a country where it is not available ?
It will never be sold to me,
so I get a COPY of it.

There's this relatively new thing called the "Internet", where you can buy things, even from other countries. Direct 2 Drive, Steam, and a dozen other legit ways to buy a game.

incal11:
Did the publisher actually lost money?
Am I depriving anyone of anything ?

Yes. You are a potential customer. The fact that your local game store doesn't carry it doesn't mean you have no way to acquire it legally, and doesn't let you off the hook for stealing it.

incal11:
In a lot of case it is indeed theft ; but what's your opinion about this particular case ?

It's still 100% theft.

Some people say "Oh I can't buy it online, I don't have a credit card." Well get a paypal account, or get a friend with a credit card to buy it, or find a legitimate way of getting it, or learn to do without. Being too cheap or too lazy to do something legally is still wrong.

Ragdrazi:
Alright, throwing it back out to the thread. Merry missed it by that much. Anyone else show a real difference between torrents and libraries?

I'm going to pass on this. I don't like feeding trolls, especially the thick ones.

Tygerml:

Ragdrazi:
Alright, throwing it back out to the thread. Merry missed it by that much. Anyone else show a real difference between torrents and libraries?

I'm going to pass on this. I don't like feeding trolls, especially the thick ones.

Good call. Ragdrazi says one thing, contradicts himself, says something completely arbitrary and irrelevant, then criticizes your argument for being invalid. Not worth your time.

Allow me to give you some examples of Good and bad Torrenting, in the hopes a distinction can be shown. Please note this is all in theory but still

GOOD TORRENTING:

Putting all the D&D books I own onto my laptop so that one don't break every bone in her 97 Lb frame trying to carry them all to a game or have to mooch books from whoever owns the house the game is at.

Getting an old game you own or have owned but that you cannot put on your computer, most likely ones that involve a floppy drive.

Checking out interesting "orphaned works" that are legal to get and distribute anyways and that may be difficult or impossible to find otherwise.

BAD TORRENTING:

Getting something for free that you would pay for anyways, ESPECIALLY if you can afford it and simply feel you are somehow entitled to take food out of other peoples mouths.

I hope this clears some things up.

Ragdrazi:

And as we have clearly established nothing has been ~taken~ by a torrent, unless the "property rights" have to be so broadly defined as to include ideas as property. That's a ridiculous proposition.

It is not a ridiculous proposition. You are simply a dishonest person who loves to avoid the core issues and obscure the actual *principles* behind the situation so that you can get away with anything.
The product has been taken. If you cannot understand this you are either a fool or a looter who willingly ignores the actual implications so that he can have his cake and eat it too.

If nothing is taken, then what are you downloading?
What you are *taking away* is the opportunity for the creators to benefit from the fruits of their own minds. When something is copied and distributed illegally you may not be *taking* an *object* from them, but just as much as you are transferring an abstract to yourself, you are *stealing* an abstract-if you will- from the source. You are stealing the opportunity for one to benefit from the fruits of one's mind. At the core of this philosophy that "digitally copying is not taking anything" is the idea that people should not reap any rewards, should not make any career or profession, out of anything that is the product of the mind: art, music, literature, business software, patents, new innovations and yes, games, among many others. If we were all to concede to the ideas implied by the acceptance of your behavior , we would all be destined to manual labor and industry, agriculture and distribution devoid of all innovation.

This ideal, your ideal, is that the products of your mind are not *yours*, they are everyone else's- whatever thoughts you utter, whatever words you say, whatever you write down is not yours, it is everyone's. The idea that is advocated is the enslavement of everyone's productive thoughts. Is this truly the democratic ideal that you would want, or that you want? Because it's games today- thoughts tomorrow.

Any element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property-by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man's mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who're able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won't produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner's terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Otherwise you are a thief--- and by your arguments, you definitely sound like one.

I don't pay for my library membership. Where you living?

You have a library card, don't you?
Are you able to take books out of the library without the card?

That's a failure, Merry, failed argument.

Erroneous. My argument is quite solid. You're just a subjectivist, and probably a dishonest man. Dishonest men dislike definition, preferring to work with the amorphous field of moral relativism.

Go take a look at the credits in Little Big Planet, Sam and Max's episodes, whatever. Read those names carefully and count them. Those are the hundreds of people to whom you are saying that their work, their ingenuity, their minds and their creations are worthless, that *you are entitled to their money somehow*. The fact that you're not running out of a store with a box means diddly squat. You're taking away those people's money, hopes, ambitions, the joy of achievement and rights to ask for money for the skills they have painfully honed for years.

So yes, you are still a thief.

Ragdrazi:

I don't get charged here.(...)

There are, it is to be noted, discounts and exceptions made for the intellectually underdeveloped. Think of it as a sort of cerebral welfare for the chronically impaired.

Graustein:
Don't we already have a word for it?
Yknow... piracy?

I was thinking exactly that.

Personally, i could write a rather long post about this subject. But mainly because so many people are frankly wrong and getting any sort of debate on that matter is actually impossible. Most don't know the laws. Most don't have a clue.

Piracy is not stealing. However you try to justify it, you are wrong.
One download is not one lost sale. If it wasn't available free, 90% wouldn't buy either.

The whole thing is a PR campaign really. There is certainly some lost sales to piracy, there always is, but the problem is basically not as bad as claimed. Most people i know that download something play it for 20 minutes, decide it sucks and delete it.

I buy what i like, at the end of the day. I have a huge DVD/CD/Game collection at home. But the price of these goods is such that, it's a bad idea to pay for them without some sort of quality control first.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg

mrnelsby:
Meh to this argument. You are just splitting semantic hairs.

I bet if a criminal stole your identity and "downloaded" all the money out of your bank-account into his you'd be much less concerned about whether to call it "theft" or not.

Bottom line, you get someone that ordinarily costs money for free by circumventing sercurity, you are a theif.

Fraud.

I wish people would literally know some of the laws they are bound by.

Are people that speed now criminals, as for every infraction they aren't sending the government Ł60?

Or are the Government now criminals for short changing me Ł500 on tax, and not telling me about it?

Or do Dice owe me a good game after 3 disappointments?

*edit*

You know what, enough of this. I'm tired of talking to this idiot.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, man.

I think you're implying Pirates feel guilt, which would be a pretty incorrect assumption.

Illegal downloading IS *thief* in the terms of you acquiring something which has not intended to be free. If it has a price tag, you can either buy it which is what everyone (and by everyone I mean 99.999% of people) normally does for goods, or you can download it for free which is wrong. If someone thinks others hard work (work that goes towards a product to be sold for money) should be free then go around to shops and ask if I can take some 'free' products.

What surprises me is that games/movies nowadays aren't even that expensive. God just pay for it normally, doing something illegal and stupid isn't worth consequences if your caught.

Merryjest:
If nothing is taken, then what are you downloading?
What you are *taking away* is the opportunity for the creators to benefit from the fruits of their own minds. When something is copied and distributed illegally you may not be *taking* an *object* from them, but just as much as you are transferring an abstract to yourself, you are *stealing* an abstract-if you will- from the source. You are stealing the opportunity for one to benefit from the fruits of one's mind. At the core of this philosophy that "digitally copying is not taking anything" is the idea that people should not reap any rewards, should not make any career or profession, out of anything that is the product of the mind: art, music, literature, business software, patents, new innovations and yes, games, among many others. If we were all to concede to the ideas implied by the acceptance of your behavior , we would all be destined to manual labor and industry, agriculture and distribution devoid of all innovation.

This ideal, your ideal, is that the products of your mind are not *yours*, they are everyone else's- whatever thoughts you utter, whatever words you say, whatever you write down is not yours, it is everyone's. The idea that is advocated is the enslavement of everyone's productive thoughts. Is this truly the democratic ideal that you would want, or that you want? Because it's games today- thoughts tomorrow.

Any element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property-by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man's mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who're able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won't produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner's terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Otherwise you are a thief--- and by your arguments, you definitely sound like one.

You've got the very basic thing right (copyright infringement is, in fact, denying someone revenue that they have a legal privilege to collect) but the rest of what you said is out of sync with the realities of copyright, patent, and trademark legislation. You're bending "intellectual property" to be something it's not -- and, in the process, you're positing a system that's downright evil.

The foundation of copyright and patent law is the idea that inventions and artistic works are fundamentally public goods, but we grant their originators a temporary monopoly as an incentive to create stuff.

This is explicitly not on "the owner's terms." The person who has rights over a patented concept or a copyrighted work has certain legally-protected rights to use it and control its use, and the public has certain legally-protected rights to use it as well. Look up "fair use" or "first sale."

"Intellectual property" is not like a plot of land. You don't get to be king of your idea, lord and master unto perpetuity. You can't control everything about it. I know it's easy to lose sight of this under the deluge of bullshit coming from various parties who want to change that.

-- Alex

Firzen777:
Illegal downloading IS *thief* in the terms of you acquiring something which has not intended to be free. If it has a price tag, you can either buy it which is what everyone (and by everyone I mean 99.999% of people) normally does for goods, or you can download it for free which is wrong. If someone thinks others hard work (work that goes towards a product to be sold for money) should be free then go around to shops and ask if I can take some 'free' products.

What surprises me is that games/movies nowadays aren't even that expensive. God just pay for it normally, doing something illegal and stupid isn't worth consequences if your caught.

Your naivety of the world astounds me.

Not only no clue about what the differences are, but simplistic black and white decision making.

Morderkaine:
...and maybe options for what to call it.

I suggest using this word: filching.

Filch (verb)

pilfer or steal (something, especially a thing of small value) in a casual way.

e.g. He was guilty of filching the Windows 7 beta.

ORIGIN Middle English

Morderkaine:
I know there are other posts on illegal downloading, but this is not the same thing. This thread is to try and stop people from using the wrong words in their arguments, and to realize that in our digital world, old terms and systems dont nessecarily apply. You cant use the same rules for a digital signal that can be reproduced 1000000 times for free as you can for a loaf of bread.
Over and over again I see people making comments like `You wouldnt steal a BMW would you?` or `How would you feel if you were mugged on the street`, but these comments have nothing to do with downloading, even as an analogy.
Downloading movies, music and games is not theft. A definition of theft : The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same.
When something is downloaded, the music artist, game company, etc loses nothing, there is no piece of property that vanishes from their homes or businesses. If I download a game for free, the only thing that company loses is the CHANCE to POSSIBLY sell that game to me, a chance they may never have had in the first place. For example - if someone in a country where a game is not sold to downloads it, what did the company loose? They could have never sold to that person in the first place, it would have no effect on their profits at all, so is it theft? Of course not! Did the company lose a cent? No! Is it illegal? Apparently.

Now, I am not saying that there is nothing wrong with illegal downloading. It is illegal, it can hurt the game, music, movie, etc makers. But it is not theft, it is something new that needs its own name. I just dont want to see anymore stupid arguments comparing it to breaking and entering, stealing cars or chocolate bars, etc, as I know the downloading issue is one that will be constantly brought up over and over again as new legislation passes.

In short, downloading can reduce profits, in some cases increase them by spreading knowledge of a product, and in some cases make no change in sales at all. It is not theft and should not be referred to as such. You may as well say that if you walk into a book store, sit down and read a book, then put it back on the shelf and leave that you stole from the store. Maybe call it `potential/possible loss of sales`, or `reduction in maximum possible revenue`, but not theft, and its nothing like stealing a car or any physical object.

Any posts to this thread, please lets avoid posts on if you agree or disagree with downloading, keep it to the topic of whether it is theft or something different, and maybe options for what to call it.

Downloading material without permission is theft. Criminal definitions are different to dictionary definitions.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary(Definitive dictionary of English) paraphrased:

"steal: verb

1 take(something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. dishonestly pass off (another person's idea's) as one's own..."

If you steal a person's idea they do not lose any money, they lose the possibility of future income from it. This is theft.

That material can be copied without directly affect the original doesn't matter. It is being taken without permission which is theft. For example, if I wrote a book I am in no way obliged to release it, if you make a copy of it a distribute it then you are stealing from me even though I had never planned to make any money from it.

Also there is financial loss, in terms of loss of future revenue and in terms of brand.

Imagine you created a car and made only made 100 so it was a limited edition, someone copies your blueprints and makes their own. This is theft, it's not affecting your original work but it depreciates its value.

So piracy affects the value of a brand, especially if it is pirated before release. It can get negative reviews which can put people off purchasing something they might have otherwise. You may not be willing to pay for something you download but someone who otherwise would could be tempted as they hear it is easy to download, so again, more loss.

You are naive if you think that just because no physical asset is being withheld from another person and there is hence no loss that it is not theft. We consider possible loss of revenue to also be theft, both in terms of English language and English and American law.

beddo:
We consider possible loss of revenue to also be theft, both in terms of English language and English and American law.

Erm, not quite. There's much more to "intellectual property" laws than "possible loss of revenue."

Obvious counter-example:
You are a car manufacturer. You make cars. I create a magic flying car that runs on dreams and starlight.
My product is better than yours. The availability of my product kills demand for your product completely. I have denied you lots and lots of potential revenue.
But, legally, I have stolen nothing.

-- Alex

I actually signed up for this topic. I think the industry uses "theft" to simplify the action. It is more easily identified with then many of the legal terms mentioned above. I do not have a problem with copywrite in general. I do not think most do. I do have a problem with things being perpetually copyrighted is a problem. How long till something falls into public domain is my question.

Ragdrazi:

SteveDave:
Symantics,you deny profit to a game developer, retailer, and publisher whenever you download a game. You are stealing and don't try to sugar coat it any other way.

And you're going to "steal" from me when you get my book from the library. The only difference is, I don't care.

I'm really tired of this. I really don't want to see anyone on this thread attack torrents, until they can explain to me how their ideas could not be used to attack libraries. Period.

Either we start tossing librarians in jail, or we stop attacking "pirates." Pick one.

Books are rented from the library because librarys are a paid service that is paid for by local governments. You are not paying for a game if you download it, you are breaking copyright laws. You are a thief and don't try to say your not. I hope you admit what you are and quit trying to hide behind symantics. It is very dispicable.

Richard Groovy Pants:
And kudos to the OP, you may be on to something here and I agree with everything you said.
Theft is someone mugging another person and taking their money. The result is a decrease in the victims capital money , and an increase in the perpetrator's wallet.
With that in mind apply it to piracy.

*pause for a moment

See? It doesn't work now does it?
A pirate that will use said pirated game for personal use will not win any money out of it. And the company being infringed of their copy rights won't lose any because they didn't had it from the beginning!. No one loses, no one wins. It balances itself out and to all the haters saying that pirates are thieves well, go eat cacti, maybe then you'll think before posting.

As compeling of an arguement as that is, there is loss/gain of money in pirating a game. If I torrent a game I would otherwise buy then I save 60$<--(that's 60$ gain in my pocket)and the compagny doesn't make the profit of that product<--(that's money that the game developper, distributer and reseller don't make) so yes, pirates profit and compagnies suffer, if the game is available in your area then there is no reason not to buy it, if it is impossible to find, then download it but it is completely pathetic of anyone who lives in a reasonably sized city in any well-developped country to claim they are not criminals, it is technically stealing and it is a crime, it also infringes on international copyright laws.

^Internet is a paid service ; so what's the difference with a public library ?
It is all officiously accepted by the PC makers and internet providers , I think that backs me up quite nicely.

Also , I agree I can't enjoy that private jet if I just can't pay for it; I don't see why I couldn't enjoy a game I absolutely couldn't pay for but still get without pain for anyone.

Ok, it seems my last post lacked some thoughts and ended up as troll-food, so I'll try to precise my thinking a little , at least because I like to argue.
I was not trying to defend theft , no more than I was trying to defend murder and rape in that order (the way some make it sound...).

WARNING This is an hypotethical situation!
You probably won't get if you lack imagination (a sad thing for a gamer ), or just disagree Because :

-I'm in a isolated and ignored country ;
-there's a civil war and I might die tommorow, there's a game I want to play before that happens;
-the internet is heavily filtered (so no steam, but I can access some torrents using routers)
-anyway, if I somehow order it , chances it reach me are extremely slim or nonexistant.

Am I to die in misery because I can't get it legally?
even though it is something that can be replicated easily and infinitely ?

____________________
Sorry bkd69;
your taking what I mean the wrong way if you think I'm saying "it's on the internet so it's free".
I remade my point , staying on topic, just above , at least I tried.

I think more like downloading ~ theft

bkd69:
For those who feel that downloading==theft, please rate the following thefts on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is stealing a copy of Tom Hanks' private fax number to send him a happy birthday card, and 10 is pushing an old lady down the stairs to take her purse and her social security check:

A) Downloading a Kangaroo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(arcade_game) )ROM to play in MAME
1

B) Downloading a copy of Renegade Legion: Interceptor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renegade_Legion:_Interceptor#Computer_Game )
1

C) Downloading either the DC or the PS1 version of Dragon Riders: Chronicles of Pern( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonriders_of_Pern#Games )
1 for the games ; 4 for the books :)

D) Downloading a cracked copy of game that you've purchased so you can install a copy that's free from DRM
1

E) Making and mounting a disc image, or applying a no-cd patch so that you can avoid disc checks
1

F) Downloading a ROM of a GBA cart that you've purchased, to play on a GBA emu on an XBox Classic
1

G) Downloading Bioshock
5

Tigerml, your opinion is so biased and deprived of any logic, and is based on your hatred for downloaders, that I do not want to waste my time arguing with someone like you.

You are the one here who doesn't know how economy works. The reason why games are so RIDICULOUSLY expensive is because of human GREED not some bullshit explanation fed to you by sales managers. I am not the first to notice the ridiculousness of their price nor shall be the last one.