posted on February 11, 2001 11:44:09 AM new
I've quite selling on Ebay too. With my sales ended my buying has been serverely curtailed .(This should be noted by those remaining sellers that think fewer sellers mean more buyers for them) but I can't go cold turkey.
I can live with GreedEbay macking $2.59 a week off me. $500.00 a month was more than I was willing to give the @$$#0!$.
*********************************
Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason.
*******************************
If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.
posted on February 11, 2001 11:57:06 AM new
I'm not personally against your "about me" page, but let me clarify that ebay is not a public domain. It is a private domain (doesn't derive it's money from tax payers)viewable to the public. Big difference. Secondly, Freedom of Speech applies to the government denying your right to speak freely. It does not apply to private companies. If you stuck up a note onto Targets wall saying they suck, they can take it down. They don't need your permission. So ebay is not acting above the law as you say.
Ebay is forgetting that deadbeats are "buyers" of your items, and they are "customers" of yours, not ebays. Ebay doesn't sell a thing to these people, so you should have every right to post deadbeats names on your "about me" page, but it's ultimately ebays perogative to decide if it's alright.
\"They say the grass is greener on the other side. But have you flipped it over and looked?
\"
posted on February 12, 2001 07:37:04 AM new
Hello Horizonod,
Your post from February 11, 2001 03:14:21 AM
is far more insulting to many of the intelligent and compassionate people here than anything those same people may have posted to Fonthill.
As to your complaint about eBay not getting rid of deadbeats I would like to know where you get your facts from.
eBay suspends deadbeats for 30 days after warnings from three different sellers. And permanent suspension if a fourth warning ensues. Despite what many people seem to think, it is not in eBay's interests, short or long term, to allow deadbeats to roam freely on their site.
It is also not in eBay's interests to allow sellers to "take the law into their own hands" by publishing the userids of deadbeats on their Me pages. Presumably, a deadbeat warning is not an eBay "death sentence" but merely a warning to the deadbeat to shape up. If the person doesn't shape up and proves to be a habitual offender then they will ultimately receive the "death sentence".
By publishing a personal list of deadbeats, a seller seeks to exact an additional punishment from the deadbeat. To possibly deny the deadbeat the chance eBay has afforded them to shape up by influencing other sellers to cancel the user's bids.
Ultimately, a published personal deadbeat list is arguably no favor to eBay or other sellers and is merely vindictive. The seller has already recovered virtually all of their fees for the auction the deadbeat ruined. Has already placed a non removable strike on the user's record. Has already told the world that this person is a deadbeat via a feedback comment.
posted on February 12, 2001 09:52:05 AM new
I was resolved to not come back and look at any further postings on this thread, however, I am glad I did, as there have been some helpful and thought-provoking responses.
I clearly understand now the difference between public freedom of speech as guaranteed by the state, and private/corporate freedom of speech which can be squelched at will without legal recourse.
Oddly however, by quoting the letter from ebay in my ME page, I was stating factually why the names were removed, putting the onus onto ebay, but using their words, which despite the content, were friendly... However, by not being allowed to quote the letter, I have had to editorialize the content of the letter, which I think makes ebay look much worse...
When ebay was started by that bunch of folksy internet dweebs 5 years ago, users were made to feel like they were part of a family - we told others about how great it was and the bargains that could be had, and the amount of money you could get for stuff you thought had no value...
Gradually, it became this stock-holding corporate monster that now treats its users like employees. I left my previous job in order to be my own boss by selling on ebay, but as RB pointed out, those days are gone. Hannah is typical of a power-hungry boss who likes to shove her authority around to keep her workers in check. They may have the right to ask me to remove the quote from the letter, but it doesn't help the situation at all. It would have been better to leave it alone. Had I been Hannah, I would have sent a different letter at first, clarifying the reason why the names had to be removed, if any, and if the letter was quoted, I would have thanked the user for helping to spread the word.
By the way, I have had many contacts from fellow sellers regarding my deadbeat list who want to know about tactics some of the deadbeats use. I had an interesting email from one fellow seller regarding the number of dead grandmothers had caused one buyer to miss payments due to out-of-state funerals... And ever since I started my deadbeat list, the deadbeats became fewer and farther between so its inclusion on my ME page, was doing its job. It wasn't there just to make me feel better... Also 80 characters is often not enough space to tell the story why a deadbeat retaliated. Deadbeats can often seem rational in 80 spaces, but send vial 500 word emails to you personally, so referring to their actions outside of the feedback forum clarified the situation.
I suspect the real reason for ebay not wanting the deadbeats listed is that is makes stock holders nervous - to see a crack in the system, and the reason they don't want me to quote them, is so they don't like the bad guys...
As for public domain of the letter, because it was transmitted to me as information, it is not under copyright. I didn't steal the information from a secured office, it was sent to me, and therefore it is in the public domain. I know that lawyers are working, as I write, on finding loopholes to this, but for now I do have the right to quote it, as you can see from this thread - if not, it would have been removed by now.
So it all comes down to "because I say so...", the true response from an authority figure who has no reason other than the fact that their position allows them...
Thanks to all of you for helping me to come to grips with the real world...
posted on February 12, 2001 10:13:45 AM new
"As for public domain of the letter, because it was transmitted to me as information, it is not under copyright. I didn't steal the information from a secured office, it was sent to me, and therefore it is in the public domain. I know that lawyers are working, as I write, on finding loopholes to this, but for now I do have the right to quote it, as you can see from this thread - if not, it would have been removed by now."
============
The term, "public domain" means that the writing in question is owned by no one...it has become public property and is free for anybody to use. That does not describe the letter you received from eBay. That letter is NOT in the public domain. It is owned in part by eBay (as the sender), and some rights are owned by you (the recipient). How you acquired the letter (i.e., you say you didn't steal it from a secured office) is not the issue. It came to you in a perfectly legal manner, but the letter is still not in the public domain...any more than what you write here is in the public domain. You may have granted certain rights to AW when you agreed to your conditions of membership, but in general you own your own written words. Period.
Recent court cases have established that many rights to written communications are retained by the sender. You cannot quote or publish material from a letter you've received without the permission of the sender. That's why virtually every message board I visit has a rule about quoting somebody else's email without their permission. And that's also one of the reasons why several recent biography publishing projects have been cancelled ... because the subjects (or their estates) have refused permission for certain letters to be used in the project...because the subject (or his or her estate) owns the reprint rights.
These rules are not always strictly observed, of course, and you'll see plenty of casual violations. However, if eBay really doesn't want its letter to you to be posted on your website, it can enforce that.
I realize this is probably more than you (or anybody else) cares to know about copyright law, but it's one of my pet peeves to see phrases like "public domain" thrown around inaccurately. I've worked in publishing for nearly 30 years, and am still amazed at what people don't know about freedom of speech, copyright rules, etc.
posted on February 12, 2001 10:17:00 AM new
10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour.
posted on February 12, 2001 10:33:41 AM new
Fonthill,
"And ever since I started my deadbeat list, the deadbeats became fewer and farther between so its inclusion on my ME page, was doing its job."
Your deadbeat list has cut down on your deadbeats? I would give your assertion some weight if I believed that deadbeats were conscientious enough to look at someone's me page before bidding or failing to pay up.
If you have gotten inquiries from others about how to detect deadbeats why not share your information here where everyone can see it and benefit from it?
posted on February 12, 2001 11:00:59 AM new
Obviously, if the letter had copyright notification attached to it, that would have been a different story - sorry I didn't mention that, I assumed it was understood, otherwise I wouldn't have quoted from it in the first place. My understanding is that email is not a secure form of transmission, like cell phones, so the content is therefore not copyrightable, unless notified. It's the same reason why the cell phone calls between Princess Diana and "Squigey" could be reported in the news, because the public airwaves were tapped into by a reporter, and email is also transmitted in a public domain venue.
As for deadbeats - well there's another thread of thought. I do believe that many people check out ME pages, I know I do, especially sellers with large feedbacks. The threat of being listed I think, helped to weed out some deadbeats. If you check out my ME page (same name on ebay as here), you will see I list the recourse for following up with deadbeat bidders. Sometimes there are REAL reasons why payments don't come through, but I allow plenty of time and several emails before an NPB alert and follow-up. I notice other sellers also say they will follow up with NPB's and neg feedback if transactions are not completed - so ask them if they feel it helps their sales records - I bet you they will say it does...
Retaliation feedback is part of the punishment for being stringent, but as I say on our ME page, only 2 of the total negs and neutrals we received I feel were justified, the rest were purely vindictive.
A lot of vendors don't leave negs when they can in fear of reprisal - too bad - it would get rid of the deadbeats a lot faster.
One thing I didn't make clear in my earlier posting, was that the fellow seller who contacted me about the dead grandmother buyer, was the same buyer I had listed. This fellow seller was only one of maybe 6 or 8 different sellers that contacted me about people I had listed. In one case, a seller was able to cancel the bid of a bogus buyer - saving time and energy on her part.
Also, ask yourself, since ebay is willing to bury the deadbeats deep into feedback files and not allow sellers to publish their names, then technically you are also not allowed to contact fellow sellers wtih warnings about deadbeat bidders, which I have done on several occasions, as well as receive many emails regarding deadbeat bidders from other sellers. I don't see the difference, and in one case, a known fraud expert was thwarted by a bunch of us sellers who deal in the same stuff reporting her all at once...
posted on February 12, 2001 11:15:27 AM new
Re: Fonthill and Freedom of speech. They are not telling you you can't go out in your front yard and yell anything you want. They are telling you that if you want to talk on thier space (that they paid for) that you are not free to say whatever you wish. If you desire to open your own web page (that you pay for) your free to say whatever you desire, and free to edit what ever anyone else posts also. The argument does not seem to be wether you are free to speak your mind but rather on who's forum your ideas/opinions are permitted. I have personally seen several open discussions in Berkeley shouted down using the very doctine of free speech to prevent the speekers from being heard. Pretty ironic, as the protestors always state that freedom of speech allows them to interupt, but do not believe it allows the original speaker to talk.
edited for spelling only
[ edited by pizzatigger on Feb 12, 2001 11:22 AM ]
posted on February 12, 2001 11:39:23 AM new
pizzatigger ... you're talking about "freedom to be ignorant", which is also everyone's right. Hell, they practice this best in parliament where the only way to get heard is by yelling louder than your opponent. And, of course, if your opponent is a true politician, you'll be too busy dodging his paper darts being floated in your direction to be able to even remember what you wanted to say
Ever try to watch The Jerry Springer Show? There is a classic example of what happens when freedom of speech and freedom to be ignorant are both suppressed by 350 pound air head gorillas .... just like Berkeley et al (except Jerry's goons don't use rubber bullets and tear gas)
posted on February 12, 2001 12:02:04 PM new
FONTHILL. Glad to see you came back.
The IRONY of your "FREEDOM OF SPEACH" arguement is that you are exercising it as we speak, right here.
I think Quickdraw said it best with his analogy of sticking up a notice trashing Target on Targets bullitin board. That says it ALL.
Quickdraw. You are one of the most sensible, even handed, focused and comunicative posters here. I applaud you! :^)(and wish more were like you.
A debate is a debate and not everyone will agree with everyone else.
Telling somebody that "THEIR OPINION" is WRONG is the hieght of arrogance and ignorance.
An OPINION, by nature, is NOT a STATEMENT OF FACT.
You might DISAGREE with a persons "OPINION" but the fact that it is "THEIR OPINION" precludes it from BEING "WRONG".
Many people that can't sort out the meat of the matter just want to critisize, belittle and knit pick.
There should be a special board for those people....kinda like special ed in school.
Anyway FONTHILL. Glad you came back, welcome back and good luck.
I too don't like Ebays Gehstapo tactics but it is their right.
The only thing we can do is to patronize their site as little as our addiction will allow.
*********************************
You want to talk about a fraudulent statement??
Take a look on the side of a box of PAMPERS where it says "Fits 12 to 18 pounds". NO WAY!!!!
posted on February 12, 2001 12:39:18 PM new
Hey! I went back to ebay - why not go back to AW? The only difference between quickdraws post and my experience, is that I wasn't trashing ebay, I was simply quoting their letter. By their asking me to remove the quote, it suggests they were embarrassed about their letter - perhaps Hannah overstepped her boundary of jurisdiction within the veal fattening pen-like offices of ebay? At any rate, their letter has been replaced by my statement which does trash ebay... so go figure...
I think when it came to the crunch, that "some buyers are more equal than others" rule that a previous posting suggested did come into mind at ebay when they realized they would be out of upwards of a thousand dollars a month if they pissed me off enough!
Obviously ebay has the authority to have me remove that as well, which would have resulted on my part of simply removing my ME page alltogether.
The mature response frome ebay would have been to ignore the quote, but since its their game, they can do what they want...and no matter how you slice it, it may not be right, even if they have the right.
As for the other posters which I obviously became angry with, it is not that I disagreed with their opinions, as much as their opinions were covered in sarcasm and spite. Constructive criticism is always welcome, and as you can see from other posters, rational thought does exist online. Comments like those from twelvepole are unwarranted and rude and tend to ire me. It was a simple quest - to find out how ebay could do what they did. I have the answer now thanks to most of the thoughtful posts that appeared...
posted on February 12, 2001 02:31:33 PM new
Fonthill,
"My understanding is that email is not a secure form of transmission, like cell phones, so the content is therefore not copyrightable, unless notified. It's the same reason why the cell phone calls between Princess Diana and "Squigey" could be reported in the news, because the public airwaves were tapped into by a reporter, and email is also transmitted in a public domain venue."
Do you think the mail or telephone are any more secure than email or the airwaves? If someone opens someone else's mail is that not a crime? If someone else listens in on a cell phone conversation it is not a crime merely because that eavesdropper has the technology to intercept the communication? But tapping a phone line is obviously a crime unless one has a warrant?
You talk about freedom of speech and turn right around and argue that it is not a violation of copyright or a crime to eavesdrop on private conversations? Or to reproduce in whole or part a private conversation?
Incidentally, there is no law in the United States that I know of that requires any indication that a published work is copyrighted for the copyright to be in effect. To register a copyright is another matter entirely but you needn't register the copyright for the copyright to exist.
[ edited by codasaurus on Feb 12, 2001 02:34 PM ]
posted on February 12, 2001 03:09:20 PM new
I don't know what you think I am saying... but I think we can all agree that copyright is a messy issue that lawyers and artists and anyone who can be affected by it argues in court on a daily basis, and if it were cut and dried, there wouldn't be the constant bantering on about what is copyrighted. I don't know everything about copyright, only those areas that I have bumped up against, and this is my understanding...
I know you can now copyright ANYTHING, which you didn't use to be able to do ten - twenty years ago - for example recipes, or dress designs did not used to be copyrightable. Nowadays, anything is copyrightable if you take the copyright out on it and notify users of the product or whatever that it is copyrighted - as is done in the flyleafs of books (although they also excuse segments to be quoted with cite). Intellectual copyright is a new buzz-word to try to cover all this without the need to take out copyright.
The email to me from ebay was not marked as private or copyrighted, and read like a memo from head office. To post that memo on my bulletin board should not be in violation of the copyright of the company.
If it had come by mail, it would have travelled through the United States and Canada postal systems, and therefore been private mail. No legal agreements are ever done over the phone for the reason that they are not legally binding. They must be mailed or served to become so. At my last place of employ, a sensitive legal email was misdirected to my email account. I notified the law office and they sent me flowers! That smacks of a thank-you for covering our asses to me! Face it, I didn't like the fact that ebay could do whatever it liked within its own mega-corporation, and you don't like the fact that you don't have the right to privacy on your cell phone!
posted on February 12, 2001 04:21:03 PM new
Fonthill,
I refer you to one of my original posts on this topic. If you want to vent about eBay's heavy handed treatment of your Me page, fine. But please spare us the rhetoric about your rights and about legalities such as copyrights, etc.
You do no one a favor by arguing about what constitutes a copyright or a lack thereof. If you feel you are within your rights to do something than do it and stand up to the ensuing challenge.
Recipes or dress designs were not copyrightable 10 or 20 years ago? I think you are on very shaky ground with that assertion.
Intellectual copyright? Do you mean intellectual property? Intellectual property is protected and always has been under the copyright and patent laws, in so far as the expression of the idea is copyrightable or patentable. But information or ideas offered in an uncontrolled or offhanded manner are free to whoever chooses to use them. That's why no one talks seriously with a potential business partner without extracting a confidentiality and non compete committment from them first.
Do you understand that a picture you personally take and place on a web site, even a site not your own, is copyrighted? You do not have to do anything to have that picture copyrighted (other than to have taken it).
The fact that copyright violations are very common nowadays with the advent of the Net does not mean these violations have suddenly somehow become legal.
And the nature of a private communication between two parties and the means by which the communication is effected has nothing to do with the rights of either party to publicly quote from the communication. eMail is no less private a media for communication than the surface mails, telegraph or cable. That an email or fax might be misdirected has no bearing on its private nature. Just as a misaddressed or misdelivered letter is still a private communication.
posted on February 12, 2001 07:11:41 PM new
codasauras - I am not professing to be an expert on the entire issue of copyright, what I do know I outlined in my earlier posting. There may be differences between U.S. and Canadian law, and laws keep changing. There are some things of which I am VERY sure and one of them is the copyright of fashion/dress designs, which didn't use to be copyrightable. A court battle was fought over this with Ralph Lauren vs. Yves St. Laurent, and there are continous battles being fought over it in court today with Doc Martens vs. various companies. The reason I know this is because I have been asked to testify as an expert witness, and/or supply statements/research. I am also positive on the recipe issue for similar reasons. As for the cell phone and email issue that is from an article in Newsweek or one of those news magazines, don't remember which one... it came out about the time of Princess Diana's phone call recordings. The rules may have changed, and maybe its different in the States from England, but it all hinged on public domain airwaves (and email was in the same category) They are not the same as telephone lines and mail.
As for intellectual property rights - sorry, you are wrong - they have not always been there - I wonder how many intellectual property law suits there were in 1750!
As for taking pictures, not true, it depends what the subject matter is - you can't go taking pics of everything and then calling it your own - What's in the background? Who is in the crowd.... Go to Cuba and photograph an air field and see who believes you about owning the photographic rights!
posted on February 12, 2001 07:45:03 PM new
"I am particularly cross that Ebay will allow bidders to email homophobic hatred to you, and do nothing, and you have no redress."
That's a chicken-shite thing to do, but why would you think that eBay could and should to something about it? eBay is only a 'venue' that allows buyers and sellers to get together. They are not internet CyberCops who filter emails going back and forth between their members.
Fonthill - if you have been libeled, take it up with the proper authorities ... not eBay, and good luck ... I hope you catch those varmits
posted on February 13, 2001 07:49:49 AM new
Fonthill,
I said that intellectual property was protected in its expression under copyright or patent law.
Obviously, if you have an idea that you consider intellectual property and you divulge the idea over coffee with a stranger then that stranger has just as much right to the idea as you.
I fail to see how email falls under public domain airwaves (and is therefore not private) but telephone conversations are private and are protected as such. I send email over telephone lines just as I converse over telephone lines.
A question for you...
What will you do if you are called as an expert witness and your last post is presented by opposing counsel as impeachment of your qualifications?
"I am not professing to be an expert on the entire issue of copyright"
"The reason I know this is because I have been asked to testify as an expert witness, and/or supply statements/research."
Incidentally, my bona fides regarding intellectual property rights is based on years in the software industry and having gone through the patent application process and being granted a patent.
posted on February 13, 2001 08:38:33 AM new
Fonthill,
I just looked at your About Me page and your feedback received and left as well as some of your current auctions.
A few suggestions...
Your overall feedback rating is excellent. Virtually no one who actually checks your feedback will pay any heed to the few negatives. So why grind the axe on your About Me page? It just makes you look like a pissant.
Your auctions make no reference to your terms and conditions being on your About Me page. Perhaps you might wish to direct folks to your Me page for the fine print regarding your auctions?
If you are going to use your Me page to convey your terms and conditions you might want to place them at the top of the page.
You mention a userid in your discussion of retaliatory feedback. The user is apparently NARU but I suspect if eBay wants to make an issue of your treatment of feedback and eBay's "gag" order then this is what they will next object to.
You admit that some of the negatives (at the bottom of the list) were either your complete fault or partially your fault. Think about what this may be saying to potential bidders.
Your collection and photos are quite impressive. But don't you think that you might afford your own webpage where you can post those images? And also post much of the text your have on the Me page? This would allow you to link from the Me page to a space you control. And you could streamline the Me page so that it wasn't so intimidating in terms of sheer size.
posted on February 13, 2001 09:10:28 AM new
fonthill,
I looked at your 'about me' page and your feedback. Now I'm really confused. The negatives you've receive can't have any negative impact on your sales. Why you editorialize on your 'about me' page is a total mystery to me now. You seem to want to draw attention to your negative feedbacks.
My advice (which you are free to dismiss) is to stop with the editorials, and make your 'about me' page short (much much shorter) and pleasant.
You're your own worst enemy in this blown out of proportion battle.
posted on February 13, 2001 09:18:28 AM new
In spite of the bickering and name calling, I find this a very interesting discussion. The input provided by codasaurus is particularily interesting with respect to copyright and public domain issues, and his/her (?) advice on cleaning up fonthill's page is well thought out ...
posted on February 13, 2001 09:25:10 AM new
Okay, now I am going - I don't care anymore... really people get a life! And thanks for your ersatz "help" regarding my ME page, but I get a lot of compliments on it - and a lot of hits. Perhaps the reason my neg feedback is so low is because I used to list deadbeats and respond to negs and neutrals - every thought of that? Really - this thread is so OFF topic now and so 2 days ago... Codasaurus reminds me of my brother-in-law - natter natter natter...
posted on February 13, 2001 09:42:35 AM newfonthillOkay, now I am going - I don't care anymore... really people get a life!
Suddenly I feel like I've let life slip me by. I've failed to get upset over matters that I thought best to put behind me. So many bidders that I haven't castigated on my 'about me' page have gotten off and never been brought to justice.
This is indeed a sobering moment in my life, realizing I have no life. It is going to take awhile to get over this tragic acceptance.
.
.
.
Okay, I'm over it now, but I did dwell on it some.
posted on February 13, 2001 11:24:10 AM new
Fonthill,
Perhaps the number of your negatives and neutrals is so low for the simple reason that most deadbeats don't care enough to retaliate. Or can't find the nerve to retaliate when they know the negative was warranted?
Have you ever bothered to consider how many negatives you have received in relation to the negatives you have given? You've handed out 125 or so negatives. Virtually all have been factual and reasonable comments. But whenever someone responds or retaliates you just insist on carrying on the dispute.
Your argumentative nature spills over in your attitude towards advice offered you. You are, in my opinion, your own worst enemy. Perhaps your attitude is why eBay insisted you take the email off of your Me page?
posted on February 14, 2001 07:29:42 PM new
Having only read a handful of replys i'm obligated to add: If you bounce a check at a store, particularly smaller ones, they post your check on the wall for the whole world to see. No laws are broken there, seems like the same principle to me.
