posted on May 16, 2001 05:25:01 AM new
http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/djbn/?story=/news/stories/dj/20010515/BT20010515006110.htm&symbol=EBAY
posted on May 16, 2001 05:46:47 AM new
"alleging eBay violated Rolex trademarks by letting users sell fake Rolex watches on eBay's German auction Web sites."
posted on May 16, 2001 08:27:18 AM new
Finally someone with enough dough to take on eBay!
I would hate to see eBay fail, and I think we all know their VeRO program is a farce.
But, OTOH, they do need a shake back into reality.
It will be interesting to see how "vigourous" the eBay argument will be, particularily in light of the fact that they ingore warnings from non-VeRO members about some very obvious illegal items being sold on their site.
To me, this is no different than aiding and abetting a felon, and both eBay and the felon are reaping financial rewards from this.
Maybe Rolex will finally put an end to the eBay "we're just a venue" nonsense ...
posted on May 16, 2001 02:02:05 PM new
That's down right silly. THEY ARE JUST A VENUE. It's as silly as holding the NY Times responsible if someone puts a classified ad in to sell a Rolex- FAKE OR NOT. I suppose the NY Times should hire Southeby's to visit peoples' houses to "verify" the item in question!
posted on May 16, 2001 02:14:49 PM new
Gosh, I remember wanting a rolex so much back in my early 20's...then I dated a lawyer who gave me one as a gift...then he cheated on me and I tossed it in his soup at dinner.
I sure hope it wasn't a fake!
ob-ebay...now I have a self-winding seiko! I suggest if you find one on ebay it's worth it's weight in gold!
posted on May 16, 2001 03:14:35 PM new
Hey Tony (sorry - I've always wanted to say that!)
The Rolex is probably a bad example for me to use in my argument. There's a lot of people who couldn't tell the difference between a real one and a fake, including me and the eBay drones.
But, I think you have to admit that there are some very obvious illegal items being sold on eBay (bootlegs, pirated tapes and CDs, illegal software, etc. etc.) that eBay ignore when they are told about them by someone other than a paid up VeRO member in good standing.
I believe that if they know a felony is being committed on their site, they should take some responsibilty to stop it, or at least check it out ... something other than saying: "if it's OK with VeRO, it's OK with us", or "we're just a venue and we can't possibly police our own site."
That is pure unadultrated nonsense, and I am hoping that the Rolex lawyers will be able to get through to the eBay Directors and shake them back into reality. Only then will eBay be a safer place for buyers and sellers.
posted on May 16, 2001 03:42:16 PM new
This case will be going through the EC. They have have different laws for ISPs. eBay's "venue" claim may not hold water in Europe.
If "venue" doesn't hold water in Europe, eBay's international revenue strategy folds rather quickly.
US sellers will suffer, as Meg will raise fees even more to cover her a** on the projected revenue increases.
Rolex knew eBay was shielded in the US as a venue, and I doubt Germany is the only eBay site that sells specious Rolexs. There must be some point of law in Europe that supports Rolex's position. YaHoo auctions sure found out Europe operates differently towards ISPs.
posted on May 16, 2001 08:23:26 PM newThe Rolex is probably a bad example for me to use in my argument. There's a lot of people who couldn't tell the difference between a real one and a fake, including me and the eBay drones
In person, they are very easy to tell. The real Rolex has a sweep second hand. The vast majority of the fakes are battery & they have a ticking second hand w/a definate delay between each second.
The real Rolex is very heavy and the fakes ones are quite lightweight.
At a quick glance w/o picking one up, it's hard to tell the difference except for the difference in the second hand. Once you pick one up, you'll know instantly.
posted on May 16, 2001 09:31:44 PM new
All of eBays double lingo will prevail.....
here is a cut from the initial registration
sign up page, "eBay cannot and does not control the quality, safety, legality or
accuracy of any item listed or any item description." And there are many many more
such wordings to be found in the eBay user
friendly database.
posted on May 17, 2001 05:54:50 AM new
"eBay cannot and does not control the quality, safety, legality or accuracy of any item listed or any item description."
They why do they waste their time with that SafeHarbour nonsense?
IMHO, the fact that eBay is so dreadfully inconsistent in how they apply their rules, any lawyer could take this declaration apart in a second.
eventer - thanks for the Rolex info. Now, can it keep proper time
posted on May 17, 2001 08:37:40 AM new
Ok, Ok, That's all well and good, but so far NOBODY has said how eBay can determine the legality or lack of it with any item up for auction.
The statement about "obvious pirated copies, bootlegs, etc" is also dubious. Other than the rare knucklehead that advertizes Microsoft Office on a CDR "backup copy". How do you know what a bootleg is or isn't.
I think all of this is a factor of the press hype over eBay. "80 year old widow buys gum wrapper on eBay and gets ripped-off"!!!! News at 11. Imagine that! Someone got ripped off!
Now because this is the INTERNET, we have to FIX this.
Right now when someone puts up "dead cat for sale", someone reports it and it gets pulled. Who is to determine the "legality" of your widget, one of eBay's gum chewing high school kids?
Once you start down these paths, they grow ever more absurd. Now you have the French gov. trying to ban Internet sales of Nazi memorabilia within France. The fact that a country is so silly as to think they can carve up little sections of the internet for their own purposes is another gem.
Tony
posted on May 17, 2001 08:45:49 AM new
The problem is that ebay is a venue which will suck them out of the legal system. Nice little feature that the law allows. Many distributors do the same thing. "We are only acting as agents for you". Well fine then if you are my agent I'm firing you! But, since you're a monopoly, where else will I go! Rolex notified them numerous times. Ebay sucks with it's Vero program/sham. Best of luck ebay, I hope them blow your ass out of the water!
posted on May 17, 2001 08:46:12 AM new
". Now you have the French gov. trying to ban Internet sales of Nazi memorabilia within France. "
Ebay's position, and that of any other internet Facility, should be:
"Tough. Make it illegal for your citizens to cruise the internet. We list what's legal to list in our country."
They could also add "Your country sucks" but that would be wrong.
posted on May 17, 2001 08:55:28 AM new
eBay has gotten away with the "venue" position in American courts. The Rolex suit will be in Europe, a wholly different legal animal when it comes to internet law.
YaHoo was forced to remove Nazi material due to losing the French case. The alternative was to either block YaHoo from Europe or develope some way to block European users.
eBay will lose the Rolex case in Europe and the "venue" house of cards will fall in the international scene. Eurpoe does not shield ISPs like the law does in the US.
eBay will either have to can its international marketing plans or develope costly, and ineffective, blocking software. The alternative is to actually police each listing - not likely.
The result will be eBay getting its wings clipped in the international scene.
posted on May 17, 2001 08:58:08 AM new
"Rolex has notified them many times"
ABOUT WHAT???? That people sell Rolexes on eBAY??? TOUGH!
Now, if you want to bid $1000 on a "Rolex" offered by a seller with feedback of 0, that is a totally different type of illness, which although rampant is also totally without cure.
It is in the interest of manufacturers to prevent sales of used items. In controlling such sales they can goniff and swindle more from their customers. But fortunately the law has protected us so far.
posted on May 17, 2001 08:59:24 AM newreamond Thanks! You made my day. I was actually wondering if it could be a class action if any others jumped onboard for this trade issue lawsuit?
[ edited by Empires on May 17, 2001 11:44 PM ]
posted on May 17, 2001 09:15:51 AM new
Yahoo was "forced" to do nothing. They simply caved in. If I were in their place I would have said "it can't be done, sue me". But OOPS, you're in France! I guess you could file a complaint with the Int'l Court in the Hague and in ten years be told to go scratch. On the other hand you could sieze Yahoo assets in France. I think they have a copier in Paris somewhere, but the address is unlisted. Call the state police. Or better still you could put a team of French telecommunications scientists on blocking access to eBay's address from French ISPs. Oh!, wait a minute, suppose the froggies start signing with gateways in Luxembourg or Belgium. Oh!, what to do, what to do. Then of course there would always be the problem of informing the people you are limiting their Internet access.
When a politician tries to get his name in the paper, he picks on a target that he knows will knuckle under. Do you think the French are marching in the streets to stop you from buying a Nazi helmet on Yahoo??
This problem will go away when the Internet companies realize it is against their interest to knuckle under. Right now they all hope it will all blow away.
The situation is similar to the lawyer's frenzy over tobacco companies being sued by people that smoked for 20 yrs and then got cancer. The companies fought and won every one of those lawsuits and now the lawyers have exhausted the paydays out of it.
Tony
posted on May 17, 2001 10:03:45 AM new
No, YaHoo actually lost the court case in France.
France could move against many assets of Yahoo's, and not just in France. International treaties allow assets, just like criminals, to be seized elsewhere. Part of having a business presence in a foreign country is signing over personal and subject matter jurisdiction to the country. YaHoo is not in an international trade relationship with France, YaHoo is actually doing business in France, there is a difference.
However, the biggest asset YaHoo faced losing is the ability to operate in Europe, rather than allow AOL to completely capture the European market, Yahoo obeyed the French court.
posted on May 17, 2001 10:45:42 AM new
I really don't think anyone has to worry about US marshals executing a writ from a French Court. Our trade agreements are for the commercial dealings at a national level and not capricious selectivity. AS for stopping Yahoo from doing business in France, I'd wonder how they could realistically do that. They might attempt to do so, but I could not see public opinion going along with it.
Tony
posted on May 17, 2001 12:26:44 PM new
US Marshals and the FBI execute writs from foreign courts all the time in criminal matters. The same applies to civil matters. Our Federal courts are also open to foreign nationals to prosecute civil matters. Lloyds of London has won civil suits here in the US. But again, do not mistake international trade with actually doing business in a country. YaHoo has a business presence in France, it is not an international trade situation. YaHoo is actually on the ground selling a service in France.
One way a country can throw a wrench in the works for any business is to declare all their contracts unenforceable. The company then becomes fair game for anyone in that country doing business with them to take advantage of the decree.
A similar thing happened in the US. Most states have anti-gambling statutes that state that any debt for gambling is unenforceable. A Michigan resident went to Las Vegas and ran up his credit card on gambling and then refused to pay the credit card debt. The court ruled the debt unenforceable. I don't know if it was appealed, but I know the case was hushed up rather quickly. Also due to statutes such as this, most states that sell lottery tickets require that the tickets be bought for cash only- try to buy a lottery ticket with a credit card in a state that has a gambling debt statute.
posted on May 17, 2001 12:55:09 PM new
"How do you know what a bootleg is or isn't."
I have always found that asking a question like: "Is this a commercially released tape?" seems to work.
Other clues:
"I taped this off tv and the quality if about a 7"
"these tapes sold collector-to-collector only, with no rights implied"
"I got these episodes at a fan fair"
I don't expect the eBay drones would have a clue about what's legal and what isn't, but they do ask for our help. I consider myself a videotape expert. The least they could do when I report a potentially infringing item is contact the seller and ask them the question I stated at the top. This would take very little effort.
posted on May 17, 2001 01:21:03 PM new
When you have nearly 6 million auctions it is a very great effort to police them. eBay doesn't have to remove anything unless the auctual owner/agent of the intellectual property complies with the stautory notice to eBay.
The reasons eBay seems so lax in removing auctions is 1: unless there is a statutory notice eBay isn't required to remove the item; 2: eBay doesn't want the expense of policing 6 million items, that's why ISPs lobbied Congress to relieve ISPs from vicarious liability and requires the owner/agents of intellectual property to find and report infringements, and only the owner/agent of the intellectual property can demand statutory removal. That's why Napster was allowed to demand the record companies supply all infringing file names to be removed from the Napster servers. ISPs have been given great latitude in avoiding vicarious liability for infringing material.
posted on May 17, 2001 02:14:07 PM new
This is exactly my point. It is clearly impossible for eBay to police what other people do. Other than a person reporting an item which violates ebay's rules there is no way for them to do it. The manufacturer can not be held as the source of what is proper either.
I am a partner in the oldest surviving video store in NJ. Years ago Disney and a few other studios were trying to circumvent the application of the "first sale doctrine" with regard to video tape. They stamped all of their tapes "Not for Rent". We of course rented them. The point is a mfg can print anything or claim anything, but if it is against the law, the claim is worthless.
The "fans" can circumvent selling tapes made from broadcast tv by selling you one of their "poems" for $10.00 and hey, by the way, I'll throw in an episode of "Maude" for free.
So what is the point of it all. It's like spending a billion dollars on prohibition. It just doesn't work.
Tony
posted on May 17, 2001 09:27:51 PM new
Well adone36, the problems you explain are getting worse. Intellectual property owners are starting to offer products that when you purchase, you do not really own the rights you once thought you did. The first sale doctrine is fading fast. Software is the leading the charge of loss of rights in property. The license aggreements are now what you are purchasing, and that license is cutting into your property rights.
Music and DVD is also getting on the bandwagon with encryption. Soon you will not be able to make personal copies of your purcahsed media. No backups or having the ability to change the media to other formats.
The movie industry wants VHS owners to be forced to re-purchase their titles in DVD format rather than have the ability to convert their library to DVD.
Microsoft just announced they will begin renting their software to businesses rather than selling the rights in perpetuity, requiring an upgrade periodically.
Under the guise of fear of copyright piracy, media companies got the anti-encryption language into the DMCA. It is now against the law to circumvent anti-piracy encryption of music and video/DVD. These companies also got the copyright tenure extended to a point that 2 generations of people will have lived and died before a copyright expires. See also the ongoing DeCSS case.
Before it is over with, we will all be renting intellectual property with no re-sale rights.
posted on May 17, 2001 11:48:57 PM newreamond One problem with Intellectual Property is the continued chase of the violators! It's quite a bit of work and convincing chasing down the perp's. A pain in the tail. We're ® and chased down 2 parties in violation today alone. It's more work than a common name would be. Hell just having a fast selling product makes up for the prestige. Properties are not community property! Much like Zoning, it has it's protections in some ways.
posted on May 18, 2001 12:32:04 AM new
The funny thing about predictions is that they are frequently made by people who think they can exert control or know what OTHER people are going to do.
The movie and music businesses are making more money than they ever have in history. From this lofty position they actually believe they can force you to buy the same CD for Home, tape for the car, and mini-disk for the afternoon jog. Trust me this will never happen. VHS movies started out at $100, but only rental stores bought them. Then those bright guys figured they sell millions if every crummy movie was $24.95. Well, here few people will do even that. They prefer to make a copy for $5 than to spend $25. The last things I've been reading about in the industry press say that now Microsoft is backing down on their previously announced plans. Businesses are rebelling, analysts are predicting dramatic upswings for Linux in the mainstream, the resurgence of WordPerfect and other office suites, etc. John Dvorak has pointed out that there has never been a "protection" scheme that has not back-fired on the issuer. Do you think people will really buy Office if everytime they change their processor or hard drive they have to get Microsoft's 3rd degree for a new install code?
Above all else the marketplace rules. The people with vested interests have always predicted the demise of the 1st sale doctrine. It's still here. Luckily, humans have relatively poor hearing. If the music industry for example ever does manage some super sophisticated encryption scheme, I'd be willing to bet the audio industry would see tremendous profits in the sale of gear people would use to make analog recordings better than they could hear of broadcast material. This would be at the expense of the music industry which would see their current record profits wither.
Tony
posted on May 18, 2001 01:10:31 AM new
Empire- I have no qualms about protecting intellectual property, but there has always been a goal of striking a balance between between owners and consumers. That balance is being eroded.
OEM software is an example. I have several OS disks that can not be re-sold unless the PC they came with is sold with them.
The record companies just released the first music CD that has anti-piracy software on it. The CD can not be copied [ unless you break current law and by-pass the system]. So I now commit a criminal act if I convert the information on the CD to analog cassette, MP3, or any other format. My right to copy for backup and change formats is now legally gone. Coping for personal use was never against the law, this was fair use. Now, in order to legally copy, you must by-pass the anti-piracy software, which is illegal.
Now I know that there are hackers out there that can by-pass anything the media companies come up with [it is claimed the CD protection has already been by-passed], but most of us do not want to participate in the black market in order to exercise rights we are accustomed and entitled to.
If someone comes up with an inexpensive device to convert VHS to DVD, the movie owners will scream bloody murder, claiming that this promoted piracy, when in fact they want all people who have VHS movie libraries to buy new DVD versions rather than convert the VHS tapes.
The movis owners also knew that the life span for a VHS tape was on average 10 years. However, DVD could be as much as 100 years with much higher quality, so there is no re-buying media when it wears out, and the secondary market for re-sale of DVDs will be much better due to the quality.
Imagine what the CEOs of these media empires are thinking when they release a movie on DVD, that will last 100 years, and maintain perfect quality. And, if you make a back up DVD, the quality will be as good as the original.
Media companies now have a single sale of the movie that will last a lifetime, can be re-sold with little reservation regarding quality or condition. Digital format is a nightmare of revenue loss for media conglomorates, and has nothing to do with piracy. The obsolesence and re-purchase we have become accustomed to no longer applies.
posted on May 18, 2001 03:08:26 AM newThe record companies just released the first music CD that has anti-piracy software on it. The CD can not be copied [ unless you break current law and by-pass the system]. So I now commit a criminal act if I convert the information on the CD to analog cassette, MP3, or any other format. My right to copy for backup and change formats is now legally gone. Coping for personal use was never against the law, this was fair use. Now, in order to legally copy, you must by-pass the anti-piracy software, which is illegal.
If I remeber correctly, a similar system was tried out in Europe a while back. Much to the Label's chagrin.
Reportedly, many older CD Players and some Car Systems refused to play the CD, which was linked to the CD Encryption. Also, Computers spat out the CD, noting various errors from "Blank CD" to "unrecognized Format." There was a vocal backlash, and plans were scrapped for further use of Encryption.
The CD that is the first "Domestic" Encrypted CD is a Country Singer (forgot who), not some of the higher grossing groups like Britney Spears or Backstreet Boys.
Now, If the RIAA is claiming that many of the traded songs are stuff that is popular right now, then why regulate the technology to some obscure Singer??
I smell Class-Action Lawsuit for those who buy the CD. "Selling Defective Goods" will look real nice to the RIAA.
Now I know that there are hackers out there that can by-pass anything the media companies come up with [it is claimed the CD protection has already been by-passed], but most of us do not want to participate in the black market in order to exercise rights we are accustomed and entitled to.
I'll rightfully admit on this board; I know how to bypass the Encryption on that CD. It's easy if you know what to do.
But I find some offense to your remark about the black market. Many people who use Napster don't do it to black market CD's. many do burn for friends, but very few do it for piracy reasons.
Even before Napster, many CD's "mysteriously" appear a week or more before the intended release date. If the Cd is popular enough, what's one CD from the Manufaturing Line?
With current technology, it's dang near impossible for someone to Pirate say, a Destiny's Child CD from scratch. It's not really fesabile.
Even with DSL, it can take god knows how many attempts, transfer errors, and the like to get the complete list of songs (not counting to make sure each track is recorded properly). And the best CD Burner on the Market does tops maybe 20X. And average, maybe 3 Cd's per hour (not counting Defective CD's and errors caused by the Program). Plus, copying the Liner notes, inserts, and whatever.
While I can debate this ad nausem, your reference about Black market is somewhat of a misnomer.
:\\\\\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
[ edited by Crystalline_Sliver on May 18, 2001 03:10 AM ]
