posted on September 5, 2000 11:56:54 AM new
I don't think it is a sound decision at all - to cancel someone's auctions solely based on what someone else tells them. The only conflict here is that somewhere along the line I pissed someone off and they have devoted their life to 'get even' with me by interfering with my auctions. It is interesting to note that one of my auctions that was recently canceled was allowed to continue by another seller for EXACTLY the same item. Wonder where VeRo was then, or where they are now for the several similar items that are still getting bids? This is very obviously a personal attack on me, and if the little pr**k had enough ba**s to admit it, I could better deal with it.
But, if you think this is a sound decision, are you willing to try an experiment?
Post an ID for one of your current, newly listed auctions for an item that cannot be construed as a copyright violation by any normal person. I'm willing to bet that I can get it canceled within a day or two ...
One of the item categories that I have purchased a lot from during the past 6 months is Emmy Consideration VHS tapes. Last time I looked, there was over 300 of these listed. Each and every one of these are technically illegal to sell on eBay (have a look at the label or box - they usually state "NOT FOR RESALE" or "RETURN TO STUDIO AFTER VIEWING", or something similar). I am also willing to bet that I could have all of these canceled with one simple email to eBay. But, I am not a p**ck or a rat ... I won't do this to my seller friends like some rat did to me.
If my auctions were canceled by VeRo, I would hang my head in shame and admit that I was a bad boy. Truth is, they were not canceled by VeRo. VeRo had nothing to do with this. In addition, the people at eBay who canceled my auctions on the 'advice' of some rat probably have absolutely no idea of who the copyright holders are (there are several different owners, and not all the people listed in the credits). How can they possibly do a proper investigation??? btw, I have asked them who the copyright holders are - just to check my theory. I doubt if I will ever get a response
VeRo have canceled some of these Emmy tape auctions. Watch any of the Seinfeld or Spin City tapes - they don't make it to the end.
posted on September 5, 2000 01:01:41 PM new
sg52, good point bringing up positive and negative impact of fees charged! I did a whole month of testing FREE shipping, and it had absolutely zero positive impact. I lost a great deal of money that month, and I attracted the wrong crowd- Cheap, loud complainers, you know the type that needs to be catered to 24/7. Now I try to charge the maximum the market will bare, and your chart (and entire post) is dead-on target showing the break points.
I don't know, or didn't know your situation and my comment was not aimed at you.
I have run accross auctions like this (I'm just paraphrasing here):
Title
"Nike Air" running shoes, etc....
Description:
These shoes are designed to look exactly like Nike Air running shoes but you can have them at a fraction of the price. etc...
If Ebay didn't end auctions like these, they could possibly be held liable.. Ending auctions like these makes good sense and I belive that's what the VeRo program is about. Companies need to have the right to protect their trademarks.
I would assume that they would take each instance on a case by case basis and investigate to find out if the item is really infringing before taking action.
Just my oppinion: Subject to change without notice..
posted on September 5, 2000 01:41:41 PM new
Yes, feistyone, that is a good example of the benefits of the VeRo program, and one that I support 100%. In that case, I suspect Nike is the reason that auction would be/should be closed.
In my case, my auctions were closed by a ratfink eBay user who has absolutely no vested interest in the item, and who did not even bother to question it's validity. And, neither did eBay, which is what irks me the most. They conducted a one-sided trial (didn't even invite the accused), found me guilty, and canceled my auctions right out-of-the-blue.
Do you think that is a sound way for ANY business to operate? Even the law, with all it's loopholes and imperfections does not assume guilt without a trial or an investigation.
posted on September 5, 2000 02:10:25 PM new
>>"my auctions were closed by a ratfink eBay user who has absolutely no vested interest in the item, and who did not even bother to question it's validity."<<
Good point... Do we have the right to play auction police? A person should have a vested interest (say an employee or representitive of the company in question.) Otherwise it is best just to stay out of it.
posted on September 5, 2000 02:29:17 PM new
I think the main problem with handling charges are that they are variable, depending on the whim of the seller. The buyer wants to know up front what their cost will be to get the item. But too many sellers don't include the exact shipping/handling/insurance charges in their auction. So... they buyer has to write and ask what they are. Then, when the auction ends, the amounts quoted in the EOA do not always match the amounts quoted previously. Is this intentional deceit? Or just a mistake on the part of a busy seller? Who can tell -- but it sure is frustrating!
If the handling charge is built into the opening bid then it won't vary. That can make some buyers feel more at ease about the sale.
True example: I email seller and ask how much shipping will be and if there's a handling charge. Mention that I have no problem with a handling charge as long as I know what it will be. No, says seller, they charge exact Priority postage only, because they've been burned by excessive shipping charges. So I bid, and win. EOA email says shipping will be $x.00. Hmm... exact Priority shipping would not be an even dollar amount...either seller rounded shipping up or rounded it down. Now I wonder which it was...? (In this case I believe they rounded it down -- I'll find out when it arrives. But it seems to me that it more commonly tends to be adjusted upwards.)
Violetta
(Not known by this nickname anywhere but here.)
posted on September 5, 2000 02:34:50 PM new
As an occaisional buyer, I only bid on items that have the shipping costs clearly listed. If they are nit listed, either I email the seller, or I don't bid. I factor the shipping and handling charge into the total amount I am willing to pay.
I primarily buy Dept 56 Dickens Village collecible houses. I will pay up to XXX for an item. It can be split up any way the seller wants: $10 for item $25 for S/H for an item I'm willing to pay $35 for is fine by me. Equally acceptable is $35 for item, S/H free. I don't care. However, I don't bid above my maximum, which INCLUDES shipping and handling charges.
posted on September 5, 2000 04:00:27 PM new
UPDATE ON MY ILLEGAL TAPES ..
Emmett from eBay has just emailed me about my canceled auctions. He has the gall to ask me to provide proof of the copyright holder's OK to sell these so eBay can verify it!
Told ya they have no idea of who the holders are and that they canceled my auctions based on an email they received from another eBay member. Think I have finally figured out who that slime is. The war is about to start ...
posted on September 5, 2000 11:02:10 PM new
What were the "ILLEGAL TAPES" that you were auctioning? I missed the first part of this conversation.. Why would they be considered illegal? Just curious..
posted on September 6, 2000 05:00:50 AM new
They are off air masters of a teevee series that I recorded for timeshifted viewing. Rather than tape over them, I offered them for sale for the cost of the tapes and mailing (I never charge extra for handling!). Before I did this, I obtained, in writing, the blessing of the copyright holder to make this sale.
Seems someone else who was selling a portion of this series (mine was complete) got pissed when I got more bids than he did, and he ratted me out to eBay. His auction, btw, went the full distance and he was amply paid. And, his were copies - not masters.
posted on September 6, 2000 06:52:37 AM new
Hi barrelracer ...
Firstly, it wasn't a Canadian series. It was a series that was produced for, and aired by NBC several years ago. Although NBC are not the copyright owners, they did connect me with the people that do own the rights and it is from those folks that I got the OK to sell my tapes under the condition that I was not selling copies but rather my off air masters. I only use the term 'masters' to help you understand the difference.
When I relisted the item the 2nd time (which subsequently got me NARU'd at the same time I terminated my account!), I included a statement in the listing that I will provide this proof. It didn't matter - the auction was canceled by eBay based on the word of another eBay user.
VeRo has absolutely nothing to do with this. It is simply some kind of twisted person interfering with my auctions. Under the current eBay policy, it doesn't matter what is put in the listing - if another member complains via Community Watch, eBay cancels the auction. There is no prior contact with the lister, and certainly no investigation as to validity of the item.
I have argued the 'splitting hairs' term many times with others at AW. I have been trading tapes worldwide for the past 16 years and I know what I am allowed to do and what I am not allowed to do. I am certainly not about to risk my collection for the sake of selling a few tapes. The amount that I eventually received from an off-eBay buyer for this item was just enough to cover the cost of the tapes (I only use high grade studio tapes) and the $42.00 to mail them. I did not make any profit, nor was that my intention. I was simply purging my library to make space for new stuff coming in, and as I do not use a tape more than once, I thought I would give another fan an opportunity to enjoy the series as much as I did. Although I will no doubt be accused of 'splitting hairs' again, the term "timeshifted viewing" is the one the lawyers like, and that is exactly what I was doing.
On a side note, there are currently 313 Emmy Consideration tapes listed on eBay. This is in direct contravention of eBay policy which states, in part: "Sale or distribution of "awards" videos, such as Academy Awards or Emmy Awards promotional "screeners," is considered by movie and television studios to be a copyright infringement." I have contacted SafeHarbour and asked them why these auctions are allowed to continue, but mine which is not included in this ruling was not. I am very curious to see how they justify this.
posted on September 6, 2000 07:08:43 AM new
RB,
I'm sorry, I guess I am a little dense this morning, but the differece between "off air masters" and copies is that an "off-air-master is a video recorded right off of the TV show as it airs and a "copy" would be a copy taken from the "off-air-master" ?
To me, either they both should be OK to sell, or neither.
posted on September 6, 2000 07:26:15 AM new
barrelracer (great handle btw!) ... You are correct, and I agree, providing the seller doesn't ask for more than the cost of the tapes and shipping. Some sellers also include for wear and tear on their VCRs. I don't have a problem with that either, providing it is reasonable. If it ever came to a court case, the seller would only have to prove that he recovered his costs. He could probably use the same argument that some posters do here when they try to 'justify' their handling costs ("I have to pay for electricity, mortagage payments on the portion of my home where my PC is, gas to drive to the post office, my time, yada yada yada".
fyi, I do not sell stuff from my collection - normally. I trade. This idea of mine to purge my library and recover the cost of the tapes backfired (because of an eBay slimy rat) and I have learned my lesson the hard way.
In terms of comparing my auction to the other person's, mine were SP off air hi fi "masters" (best audio and video quality), and his were multi-generation (copies of copies) taped at EP (worst possible audio and video). And, he got WAY more for 1/10 of the series than I did for all of it
OTOH, I made a new friend in Greece - where my collection ended up
posted on September 6, 2000 08:42:11 AM new
RB
Thanks for the clarification.
I do feel for you in that someone reported you. Before I started to post on AW, and right after I included links to my new website in my auctions, ebay called me and told me the way I did the link was not acceptable.
They were right, it was my fault for not understanding the "rules" .
However, I reviewed these boards and no one else complained, so that was when I found out ebay only investigates "reports" and they were not contacting all who were violating that rule.
I really believe that the time has come for them to commit people soley for checking to make sure auctions comply with their rules, and to stop relying on snitches.
Of course I, like you, can pop up multiple auctions doing the same linking to web sites I got called on.
Do I report them? No, I do not. That is my personal opinion, and I am not going to get into a word war with anyone who posts how I should report them.
That said, it is a great day here today, the heat has finally let up some and I am going out to introduce my horses to their saddles again.
posted on September 6, 2000 04:13:52 PM new
Yeah, I probably would.
It's not so much the amount that bugs me (within reason, of course), but the word "handling". That is a term that mail order companies like Columbia House like to use to justify their high shipping costs and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth - same as my analogy on the cost of gas. We KNOW the taxes are in there, but it makes us feel better if we are not reminded of that everytime we fill up.
.
