posted on October 1, 2000 04:43:11 PMI challenge anyone in this forum to find any person procesuted for shilling in any state where self-bidding is legal.
Since you seem to believe it is legal somewhere, why don't you tell us where you think it's legal and we'll go from there?
I can provide you with examples of people who were prosecuted for bidding on their own items without letting the bidders know in advance that they might do so, in states which impose this requirement.
As for ebay, the fact that they used to allow the owner to bid on their items PROVES that it is not in violation of any laws.
That's marvelous logic. You've just made eBay's business practices a yardstick for identifying legal business activities ( "eBay does/has done 'X', therefore 'X' must not be illegal" ).
JSmith99
edited to remove unintended smiley
[ edited by JSmith99 on Oct 1, 2000 04:44 PM ]
posted on October 1, 2000 04:53:10 PM
I am both a buyer and a seller. It's discouraging, but not surprising, to see sellers defend multiple accounts used in shilling so that they can get the HIGHEST price a bidder is willing to pay.
I assume all of them must also support "bid shielding" wherein the buyer uses more than one account to get the LOWEST price that a seller is willing to take.
Bid shielding is just shilling in reverse.
Shilling is just another form of stealing by the ethically challenged.
posted on October 1, 2000 05:00:50 PMI can provide you with examples of people who were prosecuted for bidding on their own items without letting the bidders know in advance that they might do so, in states which impose this requirement.
Please provide us with an example(s) of people prosecuted for shilling, but NOT any other crime, where shilling was simply an instrument used in the act.
I wouldn't even know where to begin in explaining how flawed that statement is.
I'll give it a shot;
Shielding is a way to prevent other bidders from bidding on and winning an item. Bidders are deprived of the item, sellers are deprived of the top price willing to be paid.
Shilling is causing a buyer to pay up to and including an amount he has already agreed to pay.
posted on October 1, 2000 05:17:04 PM
Shielding gives the seller a false impression that several people are interested.
Shilling gives the buyer a false impression that several people are interested.
Shielding is carried out by multiple accounts of one or more people working together.
Shilling is carried out by multiple accounts of one or more people working together.
Shielding gets the bidder the lowest price the seller "has already agreed" to accept.
Shilling gets the seller the highest price the bidder "has already agreed" to pay.
Shielding is cheating by the bidder.
Shilling is cheating by the seller.
[ edited by switch on Oct 1, 2000 05:47 PM ]
posted on October 1, 2000 05:18:24 PM
It's sad to see folks here defending deceptive shill bidding, and then trying to confuse the issue by not making the obvious distinction between deceptive shill bidding, which is an attempt to steal, and either B&M self bidding with full disclosure, or eBay's former practice of allowing a single self bid with full disclosure.
It's deception that makes the difference. It's been stated over and over in this thread, but some choose to ignore it. That's what makes it a crime.
It doesn't matter a whit that eBay is not an auction as defined in the states' statutes. Theft is theft, whether online of offline; whether via online auction, or by reaching a hand into someone's pocket and taking their wallet.
I wonder, honestly, if the folks who persist in defending this practice do so because they need to defend their own practices.
I'd have no problem at all preparing and filing an online auction shilling case as crininal fraud under state statutes. The difficulty would be in the jurisdictional issues, and in getting funding for victim's travel expenses.
posted on October 1, 2000 06:05:53 PM
I work in an Auction house (American owned) in England selling mainly vehicles and heavy plant. It is totally legal and "acceptable" here for a seller to bid on his own items until they meet a pre-registered reserve. This is not declared. If the seller is not present the auctioneer is required to take bids "off the wall" This is really amusing when the hall is nearly empty!!! Another "legal" practice which is seen regularly is for a seller to bring a friend who stands at the opposite end of the hall and also bids. I think it is a dubious practice in many ways but it is legal and is common practice, used mainly to dupe any Private buyers who have been brave enough to come along.[p]One other thing which intriques me about the legal debate you are having. Ebay being an International venue - how would you prosecute a seller in England for shilling? Always searching for Heffalumps
posted on October 1, 2000 06:26:11 PM
Neil - how the Devil are you? It's quite nice to think that We foreign chappies can happily do what we like on eBay with only the threat of the dreaded NARU hanging over us (not that we would, before the anti-international brigade appear). Reading some threads hereabouts American sellers seem to have the FBI, CIA and Judge Judy watching their every move! Always searching for Heffalumps
posted on October 1, 2000 07:10:51 PMmrpotatoheadd:
How the dictionary defines "shilling" is irrelevant in determining if this act is illegal on Ebay. As a matter of fact, the dictionary's definition of a word has virtually nothing to do with it's act's legality.
Shilling may or may not be legal in certain state's auctions, BUT it is certainly NOT illegal at Ebay, since Ebay does not meet the description of a real life auction.
posted on October 1, 2000 07:19:50 PM...BUT it is certainly NOT illegal at Ebay, since Ebay does not meet the description of a real life auction.
And what part of the definition I posted did you use to determine that in order for shilling to take place, it must be at an auction?
Nice try. So sorry.
OK- you don't like my definition. Post yours.
edited to add...
Since you don't want a dictionary definition and we're talking about eBay, maybe what is really needed is eBay's definition:
Q. What is shill bidding?
A. Shill bidding occurs whenever a seller places a bid on their own item, either directly or through others. An eBay seller is never allowed, under any circumstances, to place a bid on their own item.
A. Yes. This practice is not permitted per eBay's User Agreement and in most cases it will result in a 30-day suspension on the first offense. Subsequent violations will result in an indefinite suspension. A number of sellers have already lost their selling privileges and greatly hurt their own business by engaging in shill bidding. Even worse, many law enforcement officials believe that shill bidding is a felony under federal law (Title 18 United States Code Section 1343), and individuals could be punished with fines up to $250,000 and imprisonment up to five years for each violation. eBay will cooperate fully with any law enforcement inquiry into shill bidding on eBay.
Feel free to make yourself available as a test case if you like.
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Oct 1, 2000 07:30 PM ]
posted on October 1, 2000 11:25:37 PMmrpotatoheadd:
You've impressed us all with your keen ability to cut and paste. Too bad you can't seem to cut and paste anything that says Ebay auctions are the same as the auctions governed by these "applicable" statutes.
switch:
It is painfully obvious that you do not understand the most basic difference between shilling and shielding.
When shilling:
...a seller can make a bidder pay an amount up to and including what that bidder has already agreed to pay (by way of his maximum bid). There is a fixed amount of money that the bidder can even be considered to be "out" after shilling has taken place.
When shielding:
...the amount of money a seller may be prevented from getting for an item could be infinite. There is no limit to the amount of money lost, as the number of bidders and the amounts they may have bid cannot be known.
Your examples of shielding vs. shilling is what is called a facile analogy.
I am sorry you are having trouble making the distinction between the two practices. Maybe "mrpotatoheadd" can cut and paste something to help you.
posted on October 2, 2000 05:33:12 AM"When shielding:...the amount of money a seller may be prevented from getting for an item could be infinite"
Hardly. A more precise description is "unknown." (I won't bother to cut and paste the definition of "infinite" for you.)
"There is a fixed amount of money that the bidder can even be considered to be "out" after shilling has taken place"
There is a fixed amount of money that the seller can be considered to be "out" since he sets the selling price by starting bid or reserve - NONE.
Your reluctance to accept the comparison appears to depend not on any logic, but on whether you are scamming or being scammed. It must seem so unfair when you are the object of the hustle instead of the perpetrator.
posted on October 2, 2000 07:09:09 AMjeff5050 wrote,
"[You] have yet to understand that Ebay auctions are NOT statutorally recognized auctions."
It may be that there are no state or federal statutes at this time governing online auctions. However, eBay auctions are not "more like newspaper classified ads." eBay auctions are modelled after real-life auctions. Whether or not shill bidding is a crime, it is not allowed by eBay. Shill bidding at eBay is a deceptive practice, and therefore not good-faith dealing.
jeff5050, you have called posters "junior lawyers" while basing your own opinion on the fact that there is no legislation yet in place governing online auctions. I think it's a real stretch to go from there to "it's perfectly okay to shill bid at eBay." Insulting other posters and moderators does not make your arguments stronger.
I agree with Barbarake, this is an issue of disclosure. At eBay, shilling is bad faith dealing.
It's been a while since I've heard of anyone being impressed by the ability to cut and paste text (actually, the correct term in this case would be "copy and paste", but I'm sure you knew that, probably).
posted on October 2, 2000 09:21:46 AM
Only an imbecile would think that I shill simply based on what I've posted here. I am merely pointing out the numerous flaws in several tenuous "arguments" I've been reading.
switch:
There is a fixed amount of money that the seller can be considered to be "out" since he sets the selling price by starting bid or reserve - NONE.
What we're talking about here is the amount of money you potentially could/would have had. The seller's loses could be tremendous, the buyers are FIXED.
For your point on shilling to make ANY sense, you would have to assume that the item would not have had the price run up by another bidder. Regardless, the highest amount that would be spent by the buyer would be a static amount. Static---it's in the dictionary.
Let me make it as simple as possible;
In shilling:
If a bidder only bids $20, then the most they can be out is the difference between the amount they would have had to pay PRE shilling vs. the amount they had to pay AFTER the shilling. The fact remains, they WILL NOT be out any more money than they already agreed to pay for the item. It is a FIXED amount (look up "fixed" in Websters).
In shielding:
Let's say that an item had bidders willing to pay $300, yet the bid was shielded starting at $10 with a ceiling of $1,000. You would be, in effect, preventing the seller from getting that additional $290 ---or however much more the item would have received in bids. Simple stuff.
I am sure you still don't get it, but I figured I'd give it a shot.
You're walking a fine line between sarcasm and rudeness. Before you post again, please take another look at the Community Guidelines, which require the use of basic etiquette.
posted on October 2, 2000 09:52:40 AM
I don't shill bid, never have, never will. Can those who are defending the practice say the same?
Jeff wrote:
"In shilling:
If a bidder only bids $20, then the most they can be out is the difference between the amount they would have had to pay PRE shilling vs. the amount they had to pay AFTER the shilling."
Well, yeah. Exactly. The amount he's "out" as Jeff so artfully puts it, is the amount he's been defrauded by the crooked seller. That's the difference between what he would have paid in a legitimate auction, and the amount he has to pay after being scammed by the shilling seller.
And the fact that our seller may have proxied the amount he ended up paying is not the issue.
Here's a similar analogy. You hire an art dealer to find a piece of art for your new home. You pay him a flat fee of $500 for the search, describe your needs, and tell him that you're willing to up to $10,000 for the art. Art dealer finds the item for $2,000 and buys it on your behalf. He then tells you that it cost him $7,000, and pockets the $5,000 difference (in addition to his flat fee).
Is that OK just because you were willing to pay up to $10K? No. The art dealer has just stolen $5K from you, whether you know it or not. And the reason it's a crime is because he used deception to take your money.
Whether online auctions are "real" auctions is not the issue. Taking someone elses money using deception is the issue. It's a bad, dishonest thing. That's why it's illegal.
Heck, even my kids understand that, and they aren't lawyers either.
[ edited by magazine_guy on Oct 2, 2000 09:53 AM ]
posted on October 2, 2000 10:04:04 AM
Oh, but I do get it. It is you who are missing the boat. The key has to do with who is manipulating whom, and nothing more.
And, BTW, there is nothing "fixed" about a maximum bid since it can continue to be increased until the end of the auction. Please do see the definition of "fixed."
In shilling the seller picks the buyer's pocket.
In shielding the buyer picks the seller's pocket.
The seller has no more right to get the buyer's maximum price than the bidder does to get the seller's minimum.
And I imagine you have no problem offering the seller your maximum just in case he forgot to shill you - after all, it is his due, according to you. Happy buying.
posted on October 2, 2000 10:07:03 AM
That's pretty short-term "sheer brilliance". That art dealer wouldn't get much business after word spreads about his business ethics. Gee, maybe there's a lesson to be learned here...
posted on October 2, 2000 11:37:27 AM
It occurs to me that since the buyer could continue to increase his maximum bid to amounts unknown, and the seller could continue to increase the shill bid amount as well, in the odd vocabulary of Jeff's universe that makes the buyer's potential loss "infinite."
And since "infinite" potential loss (by seller) is the main problem Jeff has with accepting bid shielding, one can logically conclude that he will now reject shill bidding with equal enthusiasm.
I'm glad I could help him sort out this ethical dilemma.
posted on October 2, 2000 12:11:13 PM
Unless the seller has a crystal ball, how can he possibly know that shielding is taking place? The bid can be held at a reasonable level before the final bid retraction that places the top bid at a much lower level.
And no, it's not as easy as checking to see the bid retraction record of the bidder. Bidders can have clean ID's AND if you run many auctions, you cannot check all. You might actually end up cancelling legit bids if you get to jumpy.
