Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?

Yeah they should give away their products for free!

Slimey bastards!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

They get money sold on each blank CD sold in Canada, not in the US.

"Over-priced media"?? I still see people buying CDs every time I walk into Best Buy, so, obviously, the price is set correctly for the market. I have a feeling the economists who work for these ginormous companies have an idea of what they are doing.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

That doesn't take into consideration the actual complete transformation of a song, e.g remixing the entire song and setting it to a new beat or what have you. I feel that should definately be considered fair use since you have morphed that which you legally purchased into your own unique work.

But the actual performance of the song is not the only copyrighted portion of it. The lyrics and the written music are as well. So even if you only take the original song in spirit, if you are using the same lyrics and/or musical progressions, it's still plagiarism.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I don't understand how you feel there is any difference between buying a song on iTunes and buying a CD at Best Buy.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

If I buy a copy of Van Gogh's Starry night, I can cut it up and make a collage out of it as I see fit. No one argues this.

If I happen to put this collage up on my dormitory wall and people like it, I see no reason why I can't charge someone $5 for my time and effort in re-creating a collage of Starry Night (with due credits!) like the one I would have on my wall. Hell, I could chop up Starry Night and then throw in a bunch of Dali, maybe some DaVinci - what the hell, why not.

There are a couple differences here:

1) All the works you listed are in the public domain.

2) Assuming they weren't, you are welcome to do with your physical copy as you choose. But you wouldn't be allowed to say, take Starry Night, print up 5000 copies of it, and sell them for $5 a pop.

No one is saying that you can't take a CD that you bought at a store and sell it. If you want to cut up the disc and make a collage out of it, I guess that's your prerogative.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I'm sure being a musician yourself, you can appreciate the word-of-mouth thing.

That's certainly your choice. No one is prosecuting anyone who shared music that's in the public domain, and all musicians are welcome to do that. They don't have to sign a contract with a music label, they don't have to get paid for their work if they choose not to. They can accept donations instead.

The problem is people who don't want their product sold like that.

The funny thing is that you're saying you could take over the world and control all the copyrights, but what you advocate means that the creator has no rights whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Sass

I mean, if you're going to lock down and control EVERYTHING that could be argued as having been infringed upon (copyright-wise), why are you limiting it to this one niche of the market?

Because the RIAA and MPAA are organizations representing those types of media. I would be willing to bet there is one for books too, and if those were getting traded online as much as music and movies, I bet they would be up in arms about it too.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

BlueMikey: are you then of the opinion that something that is broadcasted in public is not public domain?

The simple act of being broadcast does not put a work into the public domain, that is correct. You are not allowed to record, say, the latest Justin Timberlake song off the radio and sell copies of it (unless whomever owns the song said otherwise).

That's not really an opinion.

How ya doing, buddy?

I'm wondering if you feel this way because you've never worked in a field where your work, your labor, your time, can be stolen so easily. I worked for a company that made software that only corporations used and we had to put all these copy protections in.

If we didn't, you know what would have happened? They wouldn't have made enough money to come up with more versions later, they would have had to fire all the programmers and close up shop.

Essentially, if a musician isn't allowed to live off his work, then it doesn't give him (or any artist) the freedom to do that as a job. If you can't get paid, then you have to work someway else and the art of music suffers.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Did you watch the doc, Mikey. Most of these artists make nothing out of their work. They do it....imagine this....for the love of the music.

I didn't watch the documentary and I don't really care why they did it. Some people make music because they like to. Some people do it to make money. Why shouldn't the market be set up so that both objectives can be met fairly?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Also, music SHOULD be public domain.

Who is to say "THIS is public, THIS is not."

Why?? What about people who make music not for the creative aspect of it? That's pretty shortsighted to say that the only reason anyone would ever want to make music is because they want it to be heard by a lot of people. The creator should get to decide how the music is used.

Originally Posted by Sass

Ooooo, I see. When I am actually making money, people want a share. Yea, ha ha silly me. I didn't see that one coming.

No, that's not what I said. You can take your physical copy that you purchased from the seller and mash it up and sell it for $1000 for all anyone cares. Fair use incorporates original, physical copies, not extra copies.

You don't own the art, you own the print. You don't own the music, you own the CD.

Originally Posted by Sass

Wait, people who don't want their product sold....by their fans? I don't understand. How would they PREFER to have it sold?

Now you're just being obtuse.

Originally Posted by Sass

I'd like for you to expand on this "creator has no rights whatsoever" shit, though. If you don't want the public to get a hold of your work and possibly warp it into another interpretation of YOUR work, don't make it public.

But they didn't! That's the thing. The work is still private, I sold you a means of enjoying it, I didn't sell you the work.

As it is now, the creator has the opportunity to own his work or to allow others to do with it as they will. Why are you so against the creator having control of his own work?

Let me ask you this: if a musician really only cared about the art and not getting paid and wanted all their fans to mash-up the music, why didn't they just create music and release it into the public domain rather than signing a record deal?

Originally Posted by Sass

Look. I'm not saying this shit should be free all around. I saying that the market reeeeally needs to stop fighting and start ADAPTING.

Adapting to what, piracy? I mean, you're basically saying that if I own a store and someone is stealing gum from me every day, that instead of putting a camera on the gum and throwing people out of the store, I should instead move the candy section outside and look the other way if people chose not to pay me.

That is absolutely and utterly absurd.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

What does that have to do with anything? The ability to earn a living off your work says nothing about whether or not you should get to own it.

And, trust me: if what you guys are advocating was legal, artists wouldn't make money off their music. Why?

An artist wants to sell it for $10 and people are willing to buy it for $10. But instead, people make their own copies and sell it for $8. People buy the pirated copies because they are cheaper, the artist makes nothing, despite having a viable market product.

You are absurd for saying that someone should have to do something else with their life because others can't stop breaking the law. That's like saying the solution to murder is moving out of the city so you can't be shot dead instead of arresting the bad guys.

FELIPE NO

But the pirates will always sell it for cheaper than the artist! They have nothing to lose, they didn't have to spend their time creating it, their time recording it.

What makes you think in your system that musicians would ever make a single cent on recorded music? It hurts music. You can't make music for a living if you can't make a living at all.

Quote:

One thing I came across a little while ago is the subject of music tablature. Is that copyright infringement?

Music tablature is copyright infringement. The artists get paid when their music gets printed in one of those guitar or piano books, and if you are a songwriter and not a musician yourself, that can provide a good chunk of income.

The act of doing tabs yourself would be akin to taking a book, recording yourself reading it aloud, and then distributing it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

You make some interesting assumptions.

Uh, have you? You talk about your job in your journal all the time.

Originally Posted by Sass

Um, music and software have two vastly different purposes in the world, Mikey.

Video games are software, and many people consider them art. So are you saying that code written for games shouldn't be protected, but Windows should be? Or the story and music and graphics in a game should be free for people to redistribute as they choose, but the game itself should be protected?

Originally Posted by Sass

People have a problem giving money to these big, faceless corporations. They'd likely be THRILLED to give the money to the band or artist, if they knew it was going to them and their costs.

You know as well as I do that major-label artists can go BROKE just from the fees the industry slams on them, no matter how big a star. The money DOES NOT GO directly into Jessica Simpson's pocket. These people pay exorbitant amounts for just getting on the label.

The musician signed a contract. Do you not understand much behind contracts?

It's funny. I received my very first law assignment a few days ago, and its for my contracts class that begins a week from tomorrow. And the first few pages basically state that a contract is a way for two parties to create their own laws. I mean, that's the whole point of it. "You do this for me, I do this for you." And those contracts say, "You sell us your music and we will compensate you in this way for it." Artists don't just get drafted into the music industry, they volunteer to sign the contracts.

As I stated before: If someone wants their music to be available, free of charge, for anyone to use as they wish, why would they have signed the record label contract? Signing a major label contract is basically the exact thing as "My music will not be available in the public domain."

Originally Posted by Sass

You ENDORSE this behavior?

A person shouldn't be allowed to break the law simply because they call what they do "art".

And I think the RIAA's strategy could be better. But (other than any illegal tactics they employ), it is well within their right to ask the law be enforced.

But I don't endorse my own behavior either. Like Smel, have almost no non-pirated music. But I'm not going to complain if someone fights me on that. If I do some illegal shit to their work, pirate it, mash it up, whatever, I mean, I broke the law.

Are you the type of person who complains when you get pulled over for speeding, even though you know its against the law?

Originally Posted by Sass

Presently, he buys NO CDs. Because....it's a hassle. A waste of money.

I mean, it's your dad's choice not to buy CDs. And if the record companies don't want to adapt and, in turn, miss out on selling something to your dad, that is perfectly well up to them to do.

You don't get to justify breaking the law because the company you are stealing from is making poor business decisions. If the law worked that way, it would be anarchy.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Maybe you should WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY AS IT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD and try seeing what we're talking about.

Heh. So because I disagree with you, I need to watch something that's going to try and influence me another way? I obviously can't form an opinion on copyright infringement without someone telling me why he's breaking the law.

Originally Posted by Smelnick

I guess also in a round about way, even if noone is making money by sharing the tabs, the people learning from the tabs could possibly end up making money with their own music.

It isn't that as much as it's more that the original owner loses money because people can bypass buying the book by getting it for free from someone else's duplication.

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

If this is the case, then shouldn't we all be required to pay royalties to the artists if we sing their song in a public avenue at say a Karaoke bar? It's the artists song, their written music, and you are blatantly parroting it.

The people who create karaoke CDs pay royalties.

There are rules for all this, see: the Copyright Royalty Board.

Originally Posted by Sass

There's a revolution going on out there, hadn't you heard? People are using the internet to get a fan base. Aren't you listening?

A lot of these people try to make a fan base to...wait for it...sign a big record deal!

Additional Spam:
I like how Dope and Sass's argument boils down to this: "Because it's easier to break the law, the law should be repealed."

Jam it back in, in the dark.

It is absurd to say that someone should have to compete with someone who is breaking the law.

What's the point of even having laws then?

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

No; signing a major label contract is basically the exact thing as "I will get paid big bucks whether or not my album sells well". It's the RIAA's fault for shelling out said big bucks, and, at that point, they've made an investment into the album's success. If it fails, it's because the artist sucks, not because people prefer to get the album for free.

"RIAA's fault"? What are you even talking about? What does what you just say have anything at all to do with the argument at hand?

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

I guess hearing both sides of a well-presented argument is passé, especially when someone can't be bothered to think about the other side of an argument because of what the law says, regardless of whether or not it is fair or properly argued.

What, are you arguing that this documentary is the exposé into the music copyright world? That it is impossible that I've ever discussed or researched this before?

I think I'm going to just start replying to what Sass has to say now.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The law makes sense. It protects companies interests to run their businesses as they see fit.

You are basically saying that a company must run their business in a certain way or it is perfectly valid to commit crimes against them.

I've watched the first 10 minutes of the documentary, and while it states that companies are changing their business models, it basically says that they are doing it voluntarily. Why do you have such a problem with a business running itself as it sees fit? (Also, I've heard nothing new whatsoever.)


Question: Why can't people who mash-up songs simply stick to songs that are in the public domain? Why do they mash-up songs that are protected under their respective copyrights?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

So you're a complete hypocrite, then? =/

I guess, I dunno. I speed also. But I don't have a problem with cops pulling over people for speeding, whether it be 1 MPH+ or 100 MPH+. I broke the law, I don't deserve to complain about breaking it.

I'm also not going to insist that a record label change their business model so I can break the law. See, what some DJ should say is, "Hey, I'm going to obtain the proper rights to these songs and mash them up and if the people who own the songs don't want to give them to me, I'm not going to mash them up." Or if an artist doesn't mind their music being used in such a way, they shouldn't have signed the contract in the first place.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

So they have no grounds to bitch when people find other ways to get a piece of their product when they can't adapt.

Snooze, ya lose. They shouldn't be in the business if this is the case. They're gonna fail.

But you're totally missing my point. He has a grounds to bitch! He can buy music from people who don't sign with major labels! He can write a letter to BMG. That's valid, I have no problem with that. I have no problem if, I dunno, Sony-Columbia goes out of business because they run their business stupidly. I have no problem if they buy up all the music and never let it see the light of day.

It's their business.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Absolutely not what we're arguing. I urge you to take notes or something.

It really is though. You're saying, "Hey, RECORD COMPANY should adapt because people break the law!"

Which means one of two things:

1) You feel the law is wrong and repealed.
2) You feel the law should be unenforced.

Which is the same means to the same ends.

Originally Posted by Dopefish

if they want to maintain their business, they have to react to changing market conditions

But the market isn't a free market, it's a black market. Businesses should be protected from black markets, or else, as I said, it would be anarchy, the entire market would fall apart.

Originally Posted by Dopefish

Piracy is one thing; remixing a song and not making money off of it is another.

But it's not!

How ya doing, buddy?

I lose control over my creation. I don't want my creation being used in such a way.

I chose not to give anyone the use of my music in that way. It isn't up to you to question why I made that decision.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Sass

I think once you buy a copy of a CD, what's on it is now yours. You didn't CREATE it, but you have a copy of it. You paid the amount to purchase an own it's contents.

You can't put a stamp on everything human-made and demand royalties for fucking everything.

I don't think the government has any business telling any of us what "creative" is, or trying to define art by dollar signs.

Look, I'm not trying to understand you improperly. That was your entry into this conversation. That screams, "The laws suck!"

If you feel the labels need to make an economic decision to stay afloat (and it's probably incorrect, I bet they are doing just fine), I'm OK with that. But most of what you've said is classic extortion. "The market will continue to commit whatever crime it wants if you don't bow to their demands."

How ya doing, buddy?

See, this is what I don't get:

I still don't understand why everyone thinks they should have a say in how a music company runs its business. It really makes no sense to me how people get so worked up about how the RIAA does business.

For example: what did people do when they didn't like Microsoft's OS and how it marketed and distributed it? That's right, they created their own operating system, from scratch, put it into the public domain, and created competing companies. Or, in Apple's case, it created other products which broadened its visibility in the marketplace which helps it compete. Microsoft can choose to adapt or not if it wants to.

If people want to make music that isn't constrained by the limits of the major label contract, if people want to mash-up music, I don't understand why they don't just compete rather than complaining and committing crimes.

Most amazing jew boots

I also would definitely prefer the artists making the lion's share of the funds. But, then again, why did TLC sign? Where is the accountability placed on the artist, why is it the big bad RIAA when they couldn't do jack shit if people didn't sign with the big labels?

That's why its completely different from your scenario. They aren't preying on workers in impoverished countries who would be unemployed if not for the Nike factory. It's not forced slavery or even a bad business practice. No one has to sign with the RIAA.

Plus, while that is a sad tale, record contracts, like anything else, reward longevity. Did, I dunno, Tom Cruise made $25 million in his first hit movie? Hell no. You become a star and then you have some negotiating power. Think about how much risk, how much money, the labels have to spend to promote brand new artists. I don't have stats, I bet that most don't pan out. So if they are going to honor the contracts of people who don't succeed, why would you expect them to over compensate the ones who are successful right out of the gate?

It is well within an artist's rights to say, "I don't like this contract. Put me on a percent earned plan and I'll sign" and see what the labels have to say.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

With that said, if you were to stand on a street corner and start singing the latest Fall Out Boy single, to the dismay of the public, you are infringing on their copyright of the song, are you not?

You are.

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

Another example that comes to mind is Weird Al and what he does.

Parodies are covered specially in the Fair Use Act. And I don't know if it's ever been tested at a high level in a court. Weird Al's most infamous one, Amish Paradise, never went to trial and Weird Al ended up paying royalties to Coolio. He usually asks artists and won't parody a song if they refuse.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Without the artist, they wouldn't have a product to sell. They may market the fuck out of their artist and produce a record, provide studios, and so on - but they're not required.

A restaurant without a chef has no food to sell, but that doesn't mean that a patron can go into the back of a successful restaurant kitchen and make his own food.

That's essentially what you're saying, that anyone should be allowed to go back there, take the food the chef cooked, fuck with it, and take it out and serve it to whomever they please and not pay the restaurant. And not only that, but obtain the recipe, make as many dishes as it wishes, fuck with all those, and give them out as they please. All without any payment to the restaurant.

And damn the restaurant owner and all his costs that it takes to run advertising, hire chefs, buy supplies, buy food, pay utilities, etc.

Originally Posted by Sass

And before you come back with "well, without the recording/label companies, the artists wouldn't have a way to produce records," I'm just going to go ahead and tell you that an artist can definitely turn a profit without the companies.

Then why are they signing?? You seem to have no answer to this fundamental question. If an artist wanted his work used freely, why is he signing a record label contract?

Originally Posted by Sass

I mean, if we're talking about contracts in general, how many people actually bother reading the whole small print section?

1) If you don't, you're a dumb motherfucker.
2) That doesn't excuse you from the obligations.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Sigh. Sometimes I think I must be speaking something other than English to you because you never ever seem to understand what I'm saying. I'll try again.

Let's say the restaurant is Sony-Columbia. A chef by the name of TLC signs a contract with Sony-Columbia. The contract states that TLC will make dishes (read: albums) for the restaurant and no other restaurants, and Sony will compensate TLC for its work. Any recipes that the chef comes up with, Sony will own. These are the terms of the contract.

Sony buys a brand new restaurant, advertises its new chef as being the best chef ever in the history of the world, buys supplies, food for TLC to cook with.

TLC's food becomes wildly successful and makes the restaurant a ton of money. Sony continues to pay TLC just as it said it would within the terms of the contract.

Similarly, at another restaurant, Joe Blow has become Sony's chef and the restaurant failed miserably. Sony continued to honor its contract.

Now here's where what you are saying comes in:

A guy who likes to make food himself, DJ Mix Guy, visits Sony's restaurant. He's eaten there before, he knows it's good. But this time, instead of sitting down at a table, he gets up and goes into the back. He reads the secret recipes of TLC, and proceeds to make similar dishes, but changes the recipes to his own liking. He then takes the food out to the dining area, and serves all the customers.

Now, DJ Mix Guy used all of Sony's resources. He used their food (I guess this would be rhythms or beats or something like that), he used TLC's recipes (which Sony owns, and would represent the original lyrics and music), and he took his own food, put it on plates, and gave his own dishes (CDs) away for free!

Feeling full from the meal, the patrons walk out of the restaurant, and Sony doesn't make much money that evening. Sure, some people still pay Sony for the privilege of eating in the restaurant, some even buy a dish from TLC instead.

But at this point, Sony has lost full control of all its capital and work that it put into making TLC's dishes the cream of the crop.


Now, I doubt you'd find that to be an acceptable scenario, maybe because restaurateurs don't make much money, not nearly as much as a record label. I would hope that you can see that someone should have controlling interest over their own products, over the contracts.


Or maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying. I mean, you keep saying that everyone should abide by the law, but then you say how silly it is for record labels to not adapt. You say that piracy doesn't hurt album sales, so I'm wondering why you insist that the record labels need to change their own business practices.

I also wonder how reactive you'd be if someone walked into your office and started telling you how you were doing a shit job because you weren't on the cusp of new technology and pandering to every single person you can find.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Teamed up with Brady, 'sup.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

The industry, if it adapted, would make more money than they now.

They bitch that piracy is ruining their income (which is untrue). To help stop piracy, they could make other options available to the consumers.

But why do you care? I mean, do you go into 4 page diatribes about every company that you feel doesn't do business well?

Anger against the labels has nothing to do with suppressing art because, as we already established, the musicians themselves have as much or more to blame for signing the contract.

You aren't being forced to buy music from the major labels, so that can't be it. You already established you have alternatives, that the labels have competitors.

Who cares why they are bitching about crimes being committed? If someone steals $300 from my checking account, I shouldn't have to explain why I'm taking the guy to court. And no one should be able to tell me that $300 isn't a big deal and that I shouldn't care about it, that it doesn't really hurt me.

I mean, I really don't get at all where you are coming from on this.

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

Perhaps there should be a modification to fair use to allow for remixing?

Well, OK. But no one can get mad at the RIAA and the labels for that. That's something people should take up with their Congresspeople, not the businesses.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by sabbey

Just because some people are dumb enough to pay $20 a CD doesn't mean it's not over-priced. People are also dumb when it comes to gasoline too, doesn't make them equally "not all there" IMO though.

You're wrong. What you are talking about is over-valued, not over-priced. Price is set where a company can make the most profits. They could sell CDs for less and more people would buy them but they'd make less profit. I mean, this is economics 101 and I'm pretty sure that some of the biggest media companies in the world would have some people on their staffs who know a thing or two about economics.

Same goes for the retailers.

Originally Posted by sabbey

See, that's an actual "reasonable" price, and the people willing to pay $8 would most likely not mind paying the extra $2 to get the real deal.

Regardless, I don't know many that wouldn't buy the official CD if it was worth buying.

You assume too much.

1) We're in the first generation of people who steal all kinds of luxury items. Before pirated music, movies, TV shows, software, etc., you actually had to have physical copies. Sure, people bootlegged, but back then, it was also costly and time consuming.

But a generation or two later, when everyone is accustomed to something other than the "real deal", almost no one would go for it. And those people would get snickered at, like the idiots who take their cars to the dealer after the warranty is up.

It's a product of an open-source culture.

2) If you cycle through a market where the price is always lower than what you can get from a manufacturer, and significantly lower...my example may not have been extreme enough. A person making a copy of a CD and selling it for $8 is almost all profit, while the record company has so many more costs. And, as I said, if one pirate sells them for $8, the next guy will sell them for $7. The record company wouldn't even have a chance to catch up to the market by the time the profit is barely pennies.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

This is kind of off-topic but the "artist", that guy you see on the record label, is not the only creative driving force that's making the record. If you count all the other musicians involved and the person who is the real music maker: the producer, the artist is surely not the only one other than the label who's getting a pay check from the album sales.

To be fair, many musicians who work on an album don't get paid (if it's a one-shot deal) or get a yearly salary from the label and don't get any part of the sales of the record.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by sabbey

Over-valued? Over-priced? It ends up coming out to about the same thing IMO.

Incorrect.

Quote:

If they were smart they would sell them cheaper and make less profits than they want

Incorrect.

Quote:

This isn't a piracy issue, it's "the consumer doesn't want to pay X amount for a CD" issue

Incorrect (if this were so, the prices would be lowered).

Quote:

The only way that will work is if they start charging even more, $30 a disc?

Absolutely incorrect.

Quote:

So, it's time to move on to find a way to get those that do pirate to move over to the legit item, another is to price the the legitimate item accordingly.

Again, the answer to people breaking the law willingly is not to change policy, it is to punish the lawbreakers. They are not breaking the law for any compelling reason other than to get cheap music, which is not akin to, say, sitting at the front of the bus as a black woman in the 60s.

Quote:

So, they should stop crying and find a way to prevent piracy that doesn't screw over me, the legitimate consumer.

Are you screwed over because you can't purchase other luxury items? If you work minimum wage and can't afford a new car, does that mean you are screwed over by the car companies for pricing their product accordingly?

You haven't indicated a single way in which you are "screwed over" other than things cost more than you value them at.

Quote:

the industry won't have any consumers left within several years to decades if they don't at least work with people to find a compromise.

I find that highly unlikely. "Because some people steal from us now, all people will steal from us in the future. If you don't bring people breaking the law back into the fold, then everyone will break the law. And it will all be the record companies' faults for not changing their policy to accommodate law breakers."




I mean, really, you don't seem to have any idea what the hell you are talking about. I think someone who even disagrees with me would think you are completely wrong.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

On a side note, we should be there day #1 if he ever opens a store.

"Come on in neighbors! I bought all this stuff and I'm selling it back to you for cheaper than I paid! Yeeeeeeehaw, open Sundays."

FELIPE NO

Cost to produce a single item: $4

Price --- Buyers --- Total Profit
$4.50 --- 25,000 --- $12,500
$5 --- 24,000 --- $24,000
$6 --- 20,000 --- $40,000
$7 --- 15,000 --- $45,000
$8 --- 8,000 --- $24,000

Most amazing jew boots