Cud some kind person get me a number on preloved

DCJACE said:
But if they simply GIVE the CD to their friend, that is ok (in my opinion).... But by your ideals that person would have done the artist/record company out of the cost of the album.
Click to expand...


Of course you can give them your CD. What you cannot do is copy it, and that is exactly what has happened in sharing this phone number from preloved.
 
cptrayes said:
Yes, it says, as you know, that you may make one copy for personal use, and that you may share that with members of your organisation, which clearly refers to a corporate membership, otherwise the fee for corporate membership would not be five times as high.

You know it's wrong SF, why can't you just admit it?
Click to expand...

No, show me the wording that ACTUALLY states a paid member MUST NOT share info with a non paid member ... show me that in the legally binding T&Cs ....
 
cptrayes said:
Of course you can give them your CD. What you cannot do is copy it, and that is exactly what has happened in sharing this phone number from preloved.
Click to expand...

But I haven`t copied it .... I have bought the membership giving me access to the information, and then have given that info on to someone who wanted it.
 
Asha said:
Hahahaha, I love this forum, threads like this make me smile. Thank you !
Click to expand...

I'm glad it made you happy Asha, because you are one of the ratepayers who a thousand people who acted like I did today over the course of the next year will result in YOU paying a marginally lower rate of council tax in 2015.
 
DCJACE said:
But I haven`t copied it .... I have bought the membership giving me access to the information, and then have given that info on to someone who wanted it.
Click to expand...

You bought the right to access it for YOURSELF, what do you not want to accept about that? If it was not for yourself alone, can you explain what the point of paying five times as much for a corporate membership would be?

You HAVE copied it. You still have it, and so does the person you gave it to. Two copies of it now exist.

I can understand why you thought five quid did not matter. I can understand why you thought you were just helping out. But I have no respect whatsoever for you continuing to fight like crazy that you have done nothing wrong when so many people have pointed out to you that you have.

Do you care nothing for the people who work for preloved, whose job security you have put a little chip in? That may snowball as other people copy you until people lose their jobs?
 
Last edited:
All those who think it's ok to pass info on to 'help' those who don't wish to pay the fiver for info they WANT, not NEED, carry on.....and eventually, given the amount of people who do this, Preloved will cease to exist (not a bad thing in my mind where the sale of animals is concerned)...
 
cptrayes said:
It's nothing like the same though is it K?

The primary purpose of BS membership is to own/ride a horse which competes BS, the record is incidental, and of not much commercial value.

People justifying what they are doing seem to be doing it by confusing what they pay preloved for. The subscription is not to 'own' one phone number from one ad, it's to have the right to any phone number on any ad before other users of the site.

There are two levels of subscription, one of which allows you to share information with other members of your organisation and costs five times as much as an individual subscription for that reason.

People seem to be forgetting that there are jobs at stake here if too many people refuse to pay the subscription. They don't provide the service for fun and they have a right to be paid for it.

I know it's 'only a fiver' but if you excuse dishonesty of a fiver, where do you stop?
Click to expand...

Before I defend my own point, I do actually agree that a fiver is still a fiver and people should just pay it.

However regarding BS membership, it is actually just as relevant. BS has decided that only members have access to records. There are non competing memberships designed to give member benefits for those who don't want to compete. So giving out record details cheats BS of non competing memberships. It is BS's information to give out - and unlike BE and to a lesser extent BD, BS has decided this information requires a membership and hence payment to receive. So it is the same thing.

So is that seen as more acceptable because most people don't purely join BS for that information, even if that too is information theft? Obviously you do see it as more acceptable.
 
I was more :eek3: at a private mobile number being put on an open part of the forum than someone using another's membership.
 
cptrayes said:
I'm glad it made you happy Asha, because you are one of the ratepayers who a thousand people who acted like I did today over the course of the next year will result in YOU paying a marginally lower rate of council tax in 2015.
Click to expand...

That's great to know, although I'm loaded so it doesn't matter.
 
Omg! I have just read through this thread and really? Get a grip! There are more important things to spend your time worrying over!

OP consider yourself told and everyone move on!
 
cptrayes said:
You bought the right to access it for YOURSELF, what do you not want to accept about that? If it was not for yourself alone, can you explain what the point of paying five times as much for a corporate membership would be?
Click to expand...

Yes I bought it for MYSELF ... but how I chose to use that info is then down to me, there is NO WHERE in the terms and conditions that states:

Thou shalt not share this onfo or thee shalt be doomed to suffer for all eternity at the hands of our solicitors for ever and ever and ever ...

and on this occasion, only twice in a 7 year membership, I chose to share it ... **dizzy now** ... leaving thread ... night all
 
DCJACE said:
No, show me the wording that ACTUALLY states a paid member MUST NOT share info with a non paid member ... show me that in the legally binding T&Cs ....
Click to expand...

I can't show you the precise wording that says you must not shoplift from marks and Spencer, but you don't do that, I hope?

To me, the wording and terms are quite clear. That they are not clear to you is a mystery to me, it really is.
 
I don't really want to be a part of this.

One thing though, I'm pretty sure corporate membership is for sellers?

It this not why you have to tick the little box saying this is not made in the course of a business, and if you don't, you are directed to buy business membership?
 
khalswitz said:
Before I defend my own point, I do actually agree that a fiver is still a fiver and people should just pay it.

However regarding BS membership, it is actually just as relevant. BS has decided that only members have access to records. There are non competing memberships designed to give member benefits for those who don't want to compete. So giving out record details cheats BS of non competing memberships. It is BS's information to give out - and unlike BE and to a lesser extent BD, BS has decided this information requires a membership and hence payment to receive. So it is the same thing.

So is that seen as more acceptable because most people don't purely join BS for that information, even if that too is information theft? Obviously you do see it as more acceptable.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as more acceptable at all. If those are BS s terms, then sharing that information is an identical situation and people should not do it.
 
Dizzy socks said:
I don't really want to be a part of this.

One thing though, I'm pretty sure corporate membership is for sellers?

It this not why you have to tick the little box saying this is not made in the course of a business, and if you don't, you are directed to buy business membership?
Click to expand...

It makes little difference, the terms are quite clear, you may take one copy of information on the site for personal use or share it with others in your organization.
 
cptrayes said:
and people should not do it.
Click to expand...

But people are people and for the most part if they think they are helping some one, then they will ... that is actually seeking out the good in people for a change and not looking for the bad :(
 
I think clearly it all boils down to morals. I personally can't stand the sort of ads you see on FB (daily) and such like from people asking for rugs, horses, saddles, and god knows what else 'cheap as possible but must be this and that'...and for me, it falls into a similar category. Just doesn't sit well with me - if you want something for your own gain, go about it honestly.
 
There, ok, CP ..... I will NEVER help anyone again ... not in anyway, just in case I am some how morally wrong ... I shall walk around in my own little bubble just in case I rock the boat of a multi million pound company who could potentially go bankrupt due to someone not paying their fiver ... happy now? ...
 
DCJACE said:
But people are people and for the most part if they think they are helping some one, then they will ... that is actually seeking out the good in people for a change and not looking for the bad :(
Click to expand...

It's not helping the people who operate Preloved is it though? It's fine helping someone out, but when it then disadvantages others who are providing a very popular and useful service, it's not on.
 
DCJACE said:
But people are people and for the most part if they think they are helping some one, then they will ... that is actually seeking out the good in people for a change and not looking for the bad :(
Click to expand...

Oh no, sorry, that argument doesn't wash with me. Do you feel the same about people with a shortage of dosh who send someone out to shoplift washing powder for them because it's expensive and they need to wash the kids' clothes?

If you want to help people give the fiver to charity.
 
DCJACE said:
There, ok, CP ..... I will NEVER help anyone again ... not in anyway, just in case I am some how morally wrong ... I shall walk around in my own little bubble just in case I rock the boat of a multi million pound company who could potentially go bankrupt due to someone not paying their fiver ... happy now? ...
Click to expand...

Are you really incapable of seeing the wider picture than 'just your fiver'? There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions out there who say the same. Add that up, and then estimate the potential damage to the 'multi million pound company'....
 
Asha said:
Now I am worried, what's wrong with the cat?
Click to expand...

Poor puddy tat. She needs a couple of teeth out. Vet has quoted between £250 - £400 ! Think it's only ever cost me around £140 max. Even that was dearer than the filly having her wolf teeth out.
Perhaps daughter take the service and not pay:)
 
DCJACE said:
There, ok, CP ..... I will NEVER help anyone again ... not in anyway, just in case I am some how morally wrong ... I shall walk around in my own little bubble just in case I rock the boat of a multi million pound company who could potentially go bankrupt due to someone not paying their fiver ... happy now? ...
Click to expand...


No I'm not happy, I just think that is a silly over reaction. There is nothing to stop you helping people, just find a way to do it that does not disadvantage a company who has a right to the revenues that the person who asks you to let them avoid deserves.
 
Moomin1 said:
Are you really incapable of seeing the wider picture than 'just your fiver'? There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions out there who say the same. Add that up, and then estimate the potential damage to the 'multi million pound company'....
Click to expand...

About as incapable as you are at seeing the company has been around since 1997, and has been bought out this year after a lot of bids were tendered for a massively profitable company, that isn`t going to go under any time soon due to it`s already huge member data base, and if those members who HAVE already paid money to them, share the odd number here or there, and members/sellers get what they are wanting from the site, and word of mouth spreads even more, that is only ever going to be a GOOD thing for the company :)
 
Fun Times said:
Now I must speak up on the basis I am a little bit in love with gary barlow. As far as I'm aware what he did wasnt fraud and was within the law. Its just people took objection to how he didnt act within the spirit of the law - not his fault the legislation was drafted by someone who failed to spot the loophole but if anyone feels strongly about it I volunteer to spend the weekend with him teaching him what a naughty boy he has been.....
Click to expand...

My point is that people think it is morally justifiable for Take That to have tried to avoid paying 63 million pounds they owe in tax. 63 million squid is an awful lot of cancer treatment.

I don't think that it is right to exploit the oversight of some civil servant who'll never earn as much as Barlow and can't avoid paying tax. Its the same as keeping extra change if a shop assistant accidentally gives you too much.

Hope you do get to teach Gary a lesson ;0
 
cptrayes said:
No I'm not happy, I just think that is a silly over reaction.
Click to expand...

and that`s how many on here have thought of your reaction to this thread too ... ;)

It`d never do for us all to be the same ... so on this one I think we will have to agree to disagree ;) ... now, I am going to drink bacardi and coke, as I don`t have to be up for work in the morning ... he he he he he he
 
DCJACE said:
About as incapable as you are at seeing the company has been around since 1997, and has been bought out this year after a lot of bids were tendered for a massively profitable company, that isn`t going to go under any time soon due to it`s already huge member data base, and if those members who HAVE already paid money to them, share the odd number here or there, and members/sellers get what they are wanting from the site, and word of mouth spreads even more, that is only ever going to be a GOOD thing for the company :)
Click to expand...

Oh well, it's fine to do it then - if Preloved are a massively profitable company, they can afford people using their services dishonestly. Doesn't matter whether it's morally acceptable or not.....
 
DCJACE said:
About as incapable as you are at seeing the company has been around since 1997, and has been bought out this year after a lot of bids were tendered for a massively profitable company, that isn`t going to go under any time soon due to it`s already huge member data base, and if those members who HAVE already paid money to them, share the odd number here or there, and members/sellers get what they are wanting from the site, and word of mouth spreads even more, that is only ever going to be a GOOD thing for the company :)
Click to expand...

That is not a justifiable argument. We can all think of a good reason for not paying our dues. I really don't want to pay bank charges, the banks make more than enough money from me already.
 
DCJACE said:
About as incapable as you are at seeing the company has been around since 1997, and has been bought out this year after a lot of bids were tendered for a massively profitable company, that isn`t going to go under any time soon due to it`s already huge member data base, and if those members who HAVE already paid money to them, share the odd number here or there, and members/sellers get what they are wanting from the site, and word of mouth spreads even more, that is only ever going to be a GOOD thing for the company :)
Click to expand...

Out of interest if the company was struggling would it still be ok? How much profit does a company need to be posting for it to be ok to do them out of a fiver?

ETA cross posted with about a million other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top