The judge agreed with eBay's position that it is not like a real-world auctioneer that vouches for the items on sale, but rather more like a provider of the stalls at a flea market. That rationale has also supported court victories by eBay in lawsuits that sought to hold the company liable for fraud by people who sell on the site.
"This ruling represents a complete vindication of eBay's program for handling infringing items," said Jay Monahan, the eBay's associate general counsel for intellectual property. "The court clearly says a company like eBay is not required to proactively monitor its site looking for infringing content."
posted on September 7, 2001 10:03:19 AM new
Hi kiara,
I did quit alot of search on these pots on eBay before I listed it and they were selling between $30-$50.
Mine was on a day or maybe less and every pot like it that had been currently running were shut down also.
Think I'll go do another search and see if any of them have come back to life.
posted on September 7, 2001 10:16:56 AM new
Perhaps I missed a thread, but I am dying to know more about this "recalled coffee pot" - what is its appeal that people would bid $50 for it?
posted on September 7, 2001 10:21:58 AM new
I don't think I would want to sell something that has the potential to hurt someone. Especially if it is an item that ebay banned.
ebay may not be found guilty but what if someone tried to sue you, Packer?
posted on September 7, 2001 10:31:59 AM new
It was recalled because the glue holding the metal and handle to the pot was unstable.
It was reported that people had burned themselves when lifting the pot and the glue gave way causing the pot to come apart.
It still sits here, my Dad wanted to take it home and use it and I wouldn't let him have it.
Its a "Spice of Life" electric pot.
Its nice and a lot of people collect that pattern.
posted on September 7, 2001 12:29:29 PM new
This case has nothing to do with "venue". The "venue" case was dealing with seller fraud and liability directed at eBay. This case is straight out of the DMCA.
Any U.S. ISP has no duty to proactivly police copyright infringing material posted by "others" on their site by virtue of the DMCA. If an item is infringing, the owner or agent of the material MUST supply a sworn statement that the material is infringing on their copyright and directing the ISP to the material, and then it is taken down. NAPSTER got hit because the songs continued to be traded AFTER Napster was properly notified according to the DMCA and the file names on member music were stored on Napster's servers.
The "venue" defence has nothing to do with intellectual property, and is a common law position, rather than a statute supported position as this case represents.
However, when eBay crows about "safe trading" and the "protections" they provide buyers, these cases should be thrown right back in eBay's face.
In fact, eBay would prefer that these cases never see the light of day, as it flies in the face of eBay as a "safe" and "protected" trading environment.
