"Never to be sold again"

Personally, I think it's pretty dirty of a company to take your money, and then try to strip you of your right to do as you wish with your own property. I'd be very warey of dealing with such a company, as it shows that tthe company have contempt for their own customers.

 

I think it's perfectly fine to say "please, don't resell", just because they would like to think that the original owner really would love and treasure their product forever.

Though I can't help but also think of the people that hold companies responsible for the second hand market too, as being a reason for that request.

All the people bashing Soom for the Beryl re-release, going nuts because their second hand market just got "screwed up", for example bring their anger and distaste to the site comments sections and post their rawr. Stuff like that could've been the reasons why some companies asked for their dolls not to be resold.

Others, like rei/sei tenshis are gifts from the company. Same with the contest prizes on DoA's Anniversary forum, and if you sell one of those you'll get a MP ban xD Why is it right for DoA to say "Hey, no selling the prizes." vs Volks or any other company saying "Hey, no selling the prizes" ?

To be honest, I'd be pretty miffed if I, personally, gave someone a present and they sold it off for a profit. Yes, there are some instances where it's okay (because you need the money for something dire), but the case in point that I'm talking about is having never had an actual the interest in a gift and receiving it, then flipping it.

Regifting is fine by me, but selling for a profit kinda sucks. :/ (Speaking from the pov of the person giving the gift) Just because the spirit of giving continues with the re-gift idea, but sale for profit just. . . . meh

 

Stupid and unrealistic - same thing for makeup artists that sell the dolls on YJ for very high dollars and tell you you can't resell, that you must wipe off the makeup first.... YEH right...

 

While I do have great understanding for the artists feeling in this matter and their need to protect their art from practices which can be considered less than legal, the truth is that such "clauses" have little if no value whatsoever in international law. As I said I understand wholeheartely the artists need to protect his or her creation, but in reality this would hold up in any court. As some has mentioned before me a lot of reasons could cause someone to need to sell a doll. People can come up in situations in life where such a clause is irrevelevant compared to other things.

 

I've waited a long time to post in this thread, and maybe I should wait longer, but . . . I don't understand the blanket statements either in the original post or in many of the replies. In the six years I've been involved in this hobby, I've only heard of two very specific cases where companies have tried to set any kind of policy about resales of their dolls. I don't think it's accurate to say that "companies" in general try to control resales, but I would definitely be interested in seeing any actual evidence to the contrary.

Here's the evidence I have, with my best understanding/interpretation of it:

Case #1: Hypermaniac, in the "old days," used to say that they would not do business again with any customer who (to Hyper's knowledge) had sold his or her first Hyper doll. This policy faded away after a few years, as more BJD companies started up and many more people joined the hobby. Of course it was always unenforceable in an international collecting scene. I believe that the policy was based in the small and intimate Korean BJD environment back in 2003-2004, where everybody really did know everybody else and Cyworld was the common point of contact for everyone who owned a BJD. In that environment, Hyper probably thought that they *could* track each one of their dolls; production was super-limited anyway, so there weren't many to track. And given that everyone was on Cyworld, I suspect that Hyper rubbed shoulders with all or virtually all of their Korean customers there, beyond the business transaction.

So even Hyper's short-lived "one strike" policy didn't regulate what customers could and couldn't do with a doll after the purchase. It was Hyper's own company policy, stating what THEY would do in certain circumstances. People were perfectly free to resell their Hyperdollies--they just risked being turned away if they wanted to buy another doll from Hyper later on. And--again, because this was a small group of people connected by a common website--the customers knew that up front. But the minute there arrived on the scene the very first international buyer who couldn't join Cyworld because of the language barrier, Hyper's policy started to disintegrate. A Hyper owner could quietly sell a doll to someone in Belgium, for example, and never come to Hyper's attention as a reseller as long as she didn't yap about the sale on Cyworld. The policy faded away without comment, as far as I know, somewhere around 2006 or so.

Was it silly of Hyper to take such an attitude in the first place? Maybe. It certainly wasn't an attitude that any other early BJD maker adopted, at least as far as I know. But given the intimacy of the creating and selling environments in that particular time and place, I can understand why Hyper felt so protective of their dolls. And I can understand why Hyper felt that buyers should enter into a relationship with both the dolls and the company that went beyond the cash-nexus. Like most "shoulds," though, that relationship just wasn't enforceable as the BJD hobby expanded.

Case #2 has already been discussed at some length here: Volks Sei-Tenshi and Rei-Tenshi, which are given away by the company, not sold in the first place. In expressing a desire that people who receive these dolls not sell them, Volks isn't trying to control what people do with things they've bought; they're trying to maintain an attitude of friendship and mutual gratitude between giver and receiver. It may be silly and misguided of them to think they can do this, especially with the spread of BJDs to societies that don't treat gifts and giving as binding obligations in the way that Japanese society traditionally has. But it's inaccurate to say that, in this case, Volks is trying to interfere in what people do with property they've paid their own money for.

Are there any other actual, documented examples of companies that have tried to restrict resales of their BJDs? Or--perish the thought!--are people getting worked up about something that doesn't really happen?

 

On the Sei Tenshi - Of course many are now sold. I am selling one myself right now having bought it on YJ.

 

ive never herd of this lol but at first i found the concept quite cute, but then what if you buy/win said doll and you dont end up bonding/liking it, its just goin to sit there un-apreciated, tbh id sell it on knowin that some one who would buy it would give it the love and attenition(sp?) the doll deserves

 

That's all an excellent point, Cynthia. And I'd go you one step further-- out of all these people who write "it's stupid for a company to try to tell you what to do with your doll after you paid for it", I'm seeing some of the same posters' names come up in other debates, claiming that it's not OK to modify a limited doll after you've paid for it, or that you shouldn't make a zombie tiny because it's in poor taste, or that you shouldn't photograph your doll in a graveyard, or that you shouldn't name your doll after a god, or....

 

Hmmm...

"At the end of the day, these are commercial transactions." But is this the true philosophy on both ends? You may feel that way as a consumer, but do the companies see it that way first and foremost, or is the fact of the commercial marketplace perhaps their secondary concern?

Now, I think it is still perfectly legitimate for people to resell dolls. You're in a financial crisis, or you don't like the doll as much as you thought you would, or you're in the business of helping people find the dolls they really want, or whatever. And I think it's preferable for dolls to be sold and appreciated than kept if they're not being appreciated. Reselling dolls should be fine, no questions asked unless the seller wants to explain themselves. It's better if people do it with respect ("someone might care about this doll, and that's important" rather than "ha ha, I can make money from this poor fool's obsession for this doll"), but people have all kinds of reasons, which nobody else is in a position to judge. At the end of the day, it is fine to do whatever, and it's better to do it with respect.

But... I also think it is perfectly understandable for companies to genuinely also feel like they might prefer if you don't. How does a doll company get made? Is it always motivated primarily by profit-- or might we not be a little more generous and allow that profit might be a secondary concern, that love for the art might be what founded the company in the first place, that the people behind it might care even more about what they are doing than the money they make from it? I'm not saying this is always the case. I'm saying that I would look with rather more generosity upon their reactions, because a cynical, hard-facts transaction may not be the viewpoint some of the companies wish to take. For instance, the case of Hyper where they considered their dolls to be "adopted" out. I don't know much about Hyper and I really can't say one way or the other what their motives were. But is it not possible that they really wanted to create a culture of sentimental value that exceeded monetary concerns, and find it disappointing when money is considered to be the primary driving force in their transactions? Suppose for a minute that you wanted to create such a culture. How would you do it? You... couldn't, really, because it is fighting upstream in our society, and even if you tried, you'd be misinterpreted as being primarily financially motivated. Whenever money changes hands, it seems to be the first thing that people prioritise, and it is difficult to convince anyone that you might care about something else even more than you care about money.

I guess I feel a little sad when I see people sneering at companies, or taking an attitude of "how dare you", for even trying. For setting out that hope, futile though it might be, that some of their policies might sway people into respecting their dolls a little more. (And here's where people say "dolls don't need respect; they're just inanimate objects" and "people already respect their dolls plenty". However, I think the entire point of being into dolls for a lot of people and companies is that they'd like them to be seen as a little more, as carriers of sentiment rather than mere objects, and thus they do warrant respect. And in this light, it is often about respecting the individual object, not respecting The Sculpt or The Company's Product...)

It seems that companies do not very often actually have the no-reselling policy in practice, but if they did, I would feel understanding towards it. I would disagree with it, and think that they shouldn't really issue a blanket ban on reselling because they don't know the individual people's circumstances. But I also certainly wouldn't get offended at the idea that a company might ohnoes dare to try to take away my freedom to do whatever I want with my property. Because... perhaps the dolls are meant to be more than just "property", in the sincere wish of the people behind the company. And perhaps that's more important, for some people, than their freedom to do whatever they please. If so... I find that understandable. Carriers of sentiment might well be more valuable to some people than abstract freedom.

 

But companies that have this policy want the owner to love the doll. However love can't be a forced thing. So selling the doll to someone else who may love the doll is the best of both worlds. I definately understand that not all companies are in it for profit take Domadoll clearly she loves the creative aspect of her company! its not for profit, though I hope she gets by as I really respect her journey. She does not have this policy fyi.

I think its the smaller less commercial company that would have this policy if it even exists anymore, like someone said it really doesn't, but if it does it is for the reason of please love this doll, its made in small numbers.

There are many makeup artists who do expect you to wipe off the faceup if you want to resell, I have seen them on YJ going for many hundreds sometimes thousands and this policy I dont' agree with. However not agreeing doesn't change the fact they request it (though it can't be enforced, once the buyer has paid out their hard earned in most cases money!)

 

Well, they really aren't stripping you of any rights, since it's a completely unenforceable rule. They can ask that someone not resell, but they can't stop it from happening. Nor do I think any such rule would be out of contempt -- more for the love and care they put into their dolls, or in the case of a free gift perhaps concerns over scalping.

That said, I don't think that sort of rule is viable (which is why you probably don't see it very often) or particularly desirable in the long run as there are very understandable reasons for people selling dolls. I do think it's better for a doll to be sold to a new home where it will be better appreciated if things don't work out, or in the circumstances of economic difficulties. I wouldn't be angry at a company for asking that their dolls not be resold, but I wouldn't feel like I had to live by that rule either. At the end of the day, when a doll leaves the company, it is no longer their property, so there's no need for its new owner to worry about it.

 

You could for awhile, as Hypermaniac did-- they didn't actually do anything to stop you from reselling the doll, but if they found out about it & you tried to buy another one from them, they'd refuse to serve you. So as long as you were OK with that, you could do whatever you wanted with the doll. It's sort of like the "Self-service of this unit will void all warranties" clause on your electronic goods.

Or, in current news, like jailbreaking your iPhone. Apple did their best to prevent people being able to do this, ostensibly because they wanted to preserve a culture they'd created... but all they can do is void the warranty & refuse to service the phone if it's been modified. (Disclaimer: I say 'ostensibly' in a much slantier italic font than is available here. ^^) Seems both Apple & Hypermaniac have had to learn basically the same hard lesson in futility.

 

I just did something I should have done a long time ago: actually looked through this entire thread.

Every point in the past several posts, including mine, was already made . . . two years ago. I feel like an idiot for contributing to this repetitive, pointless "debate" over a non-issue; see Zagzagael's posts in the first few pages of the thread for the reasons why.

I volunteer to put down my crowbar and leave the dead horse to rot in peace. How about y'all?

 

Just on a side note, Volks does have other situations where it changes what services you can receive from them - for example, One-Offs. In other cases you can use their services on your doll without proving you're the original owner, but in the case of One-Offs you must be the owner on the certificate. Actually, I can't remember but this may be the case for FCS as well. I'm sure in the case of One-Offs it's a futile attempt to ward off the scalpers .

It's not unusual in contests completely outside of this hobby to have restrictions on what you can do with the prizes, and if you own any software at all read the TOS - you never actually own it . . . Not that people are really held back by those rules on a practical level.

 

...yeah, I never said they could force it. I said I understood their wish to try, or to do what they could, or to ask you to behave with goodwill. Because even an unenforcable policy will make people think twice, and possibly make a difference for some.

I guess I just think it's ironic when the consumers, who are the ones valuing the sentiment and feeling of the doll for non-monetary reasons, are the ones thinking cynically and focusing on money matters while the companies are the ones saying "we'd like this to be an emotional tie."

 

The thread necromancy gave the horse the classic zombie illusion of life. It followed the role well enough and promptly ate our collective brains.

(I almost posted again, too, apparently just to repeat exactly what I said the first time.)

 

oooooOOOOOneighneighoooooooooooOOOOOoooooooooooooowhinnyOOOOOOooooooo

(Trying to make zombie-horse noises and failing miserably.)

 

Yes this is an old thread it should really be just locked

 

This made me laugh way too hard. I shall now commence wiping water from my desk.

 

The debate forum is full of of zombie horses -- there's a whole zombie herd that periodically sifts back up to the top of the pile