I'm very surprised. eBay has been sued time and again but have won all prior cases. Because they don't warehouse any of the products, they simply facilitate sales, prior courts have ruled they are not liable for goods sold over their system. If this decision is upheld, it's a major blow to eBay, and IMO a very unfair ruling.
Upvote
0
Sure it's unfair. Do we expect WH Smith to be responsible for the content of books it sells? eBay is a marketplace that brings together individuals. In no way are they responsible for the goods sold over their system. They have put tools in place to help, such as a rating system. In their business model, it's up to the user community to decide how everything works. eBay simply brings everyone together.
I sometimes think we like to see big companies get beaten up just because they are big and successful. Frankly, I don't subscribe to that view.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sorry Steve I disagree with that. They won in the US, but this was in France, and they have very high consumer protection rules which actually benefit the people themselves.
I've seen quite a few rulings from France lately, and have agreed with most of them. An example being that its wrong to bundle software (aka Windows XP) with the sale of a computer, without the ability to say no - I don't want it. After-all, this is what got Microsoft to its level of market share because other OS makers couldn't find an entrance to the market at the source, that being computer sales.
By not bundling, it forces the consumer to choose from a wider range.
You're not absolved of liability just because you don't actually stock the goods, as you still know what these goods are, and the price being asked of them. The old motto comes into play here "If its too good to be true, it probably is", and a designer bag being sold in the dozens from someone sitting at home stinks of illegal activity.
eBay have been treading on thin ice for a long time, and earned a lot of money in the process. Hopefully next will be Google in the firing line, and some of their dodgy practices, namely ignoring copyright laws when its suits them - will have to stop. (Hell, I could throw in Youtube in here, but again, its now owned by Google.)
I've seen quite a few rulings from France lately, and have agreed with most of them. An example being that its wrong to bundle software (aka Windows XP) with the sale of a computer, without the ability to say no - I don't want it. After-all, this is what got Microsoft to its level of market share because other OS makers couldn't find an entrance to the market at the source, that being computer sales.
By not bundling, it forces the consumer to choose from a wider range.
You're not absolved of liability just because you don't actually stock the goods, as you still know what these goods are, and the price being asked of them. The old motto comes into play here "If its too good to be true, it probably is", and a designer bag being sold in the dozens from someone sitting at home stinks of illegal activity.
eBay have been treading on thin ice for a long time, and earned a lot of money in the process. Hopefully next will be Google in the firing line, and some of their dodgy practices, namely ignoring copyright laws when its suits them - will have to stop. (Hell, I could throw in Youtube in here, but again, its now owned by Google.)
Upvote
0
Of course. And the buyer was a fool to buy such an item from a seller who obviously had a poor rating or no rating. You can't blame eBay for that.
Who do we blame when we buy a knock-off designer bag from a 'Del Boy' at the market? The local council for not monitoring who sells what? You have to expect buyers to use common sense, otherwise big brother kicks in yet again.
Upvote
0
Steve your argument makes no sense. Where did you get the "obviously had a poor rating" from? How is it obvious? I'll grant you that yes, some of these people are fools for thinking its a good idea to buy rubbish... Its funny what a tag on a bag can do.
But eBay is directly putting buyers in touch with sellers - Peckham council is not.
Upvote
0
Personally, I'm glad to see eBay having to bend over and touch it's toes - it's about time.
It's not a case of seeing the big boys getting a kick in the nuts (well, not entirely). It's the fact that eBay does run roughshod over sellers/buyers at times, so we all like to see that being reciprocated by a higher body doing the same to them.
ebay takes enough in fees & other revenue on a one-way basis (i.e. ignoring customers service, making blanket decisions in their own interests etc.), in all likeliehood the impact of this ruling will trickle down and they will kick out the at folks below them.
I would suggest he difference between eBay & WH Smith is at least the latter engages & considers it's suppliers and customers.
It's not a case of seeing the big boys getting a kick in the nuts (well, not entirely). It's the fact that eBay does run roughshod over sellers/buyers at times, so we all like to see that being reciprocated by a higher body doing the same to them.
ebay takes enough in fees & other revenue on a one-way basis (i.e. ignoring customers service, making blanket decisions in their own interests etc.), in all likeliehood the impact of this ruling will trickle down and they will kick out the at folks below them.
I would suggest he difference between eBay & WH Smith is at least the latter engages & considers it's suppliers and customers.
Upvote
0
They have a record of putting in place procedures to protect their users. One thing I've learned as I travel around the world is that fraudsters can be very creative. You have to lay the blame where it belongs, in this case with the person who deliberately sells knock-offs as the real thing. What would happen to eBay if they had to check out every single seller and every single good sold at their system? That's just not practical.
eBay has does so much good in the world, bringing the marketplace to people living in remote corners of the world. It would be so stupid to shut them down when they really can't be held liable for some idiot buying a designer bag from a fraudster.
Upvote
0
There's no difference except that eBay is using the Internet to reach people all around the world. It's just a fact of life that sometimes a clever criminal can pass something off on a naive buyer. That's life! eBay has put in place procedures to help protect against it, but they really can't be held responsible unless every item sold over their system is checked in person, and that's not going to happen.
I suspect that, moving forward, France has just barred its citizens from using eBay. Tough cheddar.
Upvote
0
And I can understand someone wanting to force them to improve their service. Best of all would be strong competition. Still, that's not the issue here. We're not talking about fees etc. We're talking about eBay being held responsible for the quality of everything sold using their system, which just ain't gonna happen - and is not practical.
Upvote
0
If they have to do what virtually every other business in the world has to do? If you own a shop, and sell a dodgy product, you're liable for it. Why should eBay be any different when they will happily make profit from it?
Upvote
0
But they don't own a shop. They are a marketplace that allows shops to reach buyers. The shop is responsible, i.e., the seller. If someone sells faulty goods, you go after the seller. You don't go after the person who leases their shop.
I repeat, eBay does not sell anything. eBay is an electronic marketplace. You can't blame the owner of the market for someone selling bad goods in their shops - especially when the market has millions of shops.
In all previous legal cases, the key issue was warehousing. If they took ownership of goods, even for a second, they would be responsible. As it is, though, they facilitate the process and are not involved in the sale.
Upvote
0
There have been many cases before this one. Only in France is the marketplace deemed to be responsible for the actions of the seller.
Still, this action has prompted a good debate, hasn't it?
PS - I'm actually not a lover of eBay. My only interaction with them stank. Nonetheless, I believe is certain principles, and this ruling is setting a very dangerous precedent. Indeed, it could put many online companies out of business:
- What if your company downloads software on behalf of software providers? Are you now responsible for pirated software?
- What about telephone companies that allow you to send short messages. Are they responsible when you do something illegal via a text message?
These things don't bear thinking about.
Upvote
0
There have been many cases before this one. Only in France is the marketplace deemed to be responsible for the actions of the seller.
Yep, like I said earlier I've read about a few cases and thought good on you France - why don't we do that!
In this country we let companies get away with murder, and then fine them less than half of the profit they made. :redface:
I don't really understand the question tbh, but I do know that yes you're liable if non-licensed software is found on your systems.
No - because this is a real time transaction, but if they have been notified of something, like harassment, and do nothing about it - they're liable.
Upvote
0
M
MH1
- Original Poster
- #19
Market and car Boot organisers, both private and public are held responsible for what is sold on them, one reason most never allow a professional dvd seller on car boots anymore, to cut out the piracy sales.
If any are caught the market/car boot can be shut down completely.
Personally I reckon it's a good thing, ebay have hidden behind the marketplace excuse for too long, despite being aware of scammers they have allowed them to continue selling resulting in customers losing money, sometimes large amounts.
With computers able to monitor key words easily in listings ebay have the ability to monitor the situation easily, but it would result in higher costs for them and lower fees from lost sales, welcome to the real world.
Upvote
0
Ebay is a shop and as such should come under the laws that relate to shops.The idea that it is an auction house has long gone by the board judging by the amount of BUY now Buttons.
If I let any Tom Dick and Harry put various items up for sale in our shop without checking the goods,I suggest I could well get into trouble at some time as we would be ultimately responsible.
Ebay have so far got away with earning there money the easy way,But hopefully they will now have to check the goods they sell.
Earl
If I let any Tom Dick and Harry put various items up for sale in our shop without checking the goods,I suggest I could well get into trouble at some time as we would be ultimately responsible.
Ebay have so far got away with earning there money the easy way,But hopefully they will now have to check the goods they sell.
Earl
Upvote
0
Earl, they are NOT a shop! They are an online marketplace.
Let's take one of the analogies a step further. Let's say you own a big shopping precinct. You attract people to your precinct by offering amusement rides, you put up store directories in the walkways so shoppers can find certain types of store, and you rent out the stores to sellers (which is your 'fee'). You even let shoppers post a notice on each shop door stating whether or not the seller is trustworthy.
If someone in one of the stores sells a knock-off handbag, who's to blame? Is it the buyer, for stupidly buying something at a price that's too good to be true and ignoring the warnings posted by other shoppers on the front door? Is it the seller for deliberately selling something passed off as something else? Or is it you because you brought together the buyer and seller and earn rent on the store?
The French court is claiming that you, the owner of the precinct, are to blame - and that's just plain ridiculous.
Please explain to me, in the scenario above:
1) Where does the analogy fall down?
2) Why is the precinct owner responsible for goods sold by the seller?
Upvote
0
Its wrong on many levels.
eBay is not a "marketplace", its an on-line auction site. (And we have laws for auctions)
eBay does not entice you to ebay.co.uk by offering you ice-cream, rides or free mars bars, but for the sole purpose of purchasing items at cheap prices.
You also (and I have to say maybe twice or three times now) have to referred to a single illegal sale - when its systematic on eBay, not a one-off which I think many people would let off.
The rating feature of eBay is well known to be crap. Many merchants on that site have threatened bad ratings back onto the customer if they dare to do it to them.
Your shopping precinct also fails on the fact eBay can bring up and automatically search every item - you can't do this in a shopping centre where each store runs autonomously.
The question again comes down to knowing what the store is selling. And eBay do. (or could easily)
Again, the shopping precinct analogy is a very bad one. Yes, the buyer is stupid, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to take advantage. Knowingly purchasing counterfeit goods is also punishable - but I'll admit rarely enforced to any meaningful levels.
Yes, and we prosecute these people too.
Yes if you know what is being sold. As eBay actively advertise the products across many websites, we have to conclude yes, the store owner is also to complicit.
eBay is not a "marketplace", its an on-line auction site. (And we have laws for auctions)
eBay does not entice you to ebay.co.uk by offering you ice-cream, rides or free mars bars, but for the sole purpose of purchasing items at cheap prices.
You also (and I have to say maybe twice or three times now) have to referred to a single illegal sale - when its systematic on eBay, not a one-off which I think many people would let off.
The rating feature of eBay is well known to be crap. Many merchants on that site have threatened bad ratings back onto the customer if they dare to do it to them.
Your shopping precinct also fails on the fact eBay can bring up and automatically search every item - you can't do this in a shopping centre where each store runs autonomously.
The question again comes down to knowing what the store is selling. And eBay do. (or could easily)
Again, the shopping precinct analogy is a very bad one. Yes, the buyer is stupid, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to take advantage. Knowingly purchasing counterfeit goods is also punishable - but I'll admit rarely enforced to any meaningful levels.
Yes, and we prosecute these people too.
Yes if you know what is being sold. As eBay actively advertise the products across many websites, we have to conclude yes, the store owner is also to complicit.
Upvote
0
So, explain to me how eBay knows that someone selling a designer bag is really sending buyers knock-offs? You say they can search for this - by key-word "knock-off"?
Seriously, how can they know what is really being sold? They can only provide tools to help buyers and sellers. If they were warehousing the goods, they would know; however, they are simply facilitating the buying/selling process and have no idea what goods are actually sent from one to the other.
Upvote
0
By searching for "Louis Vuitton" in their sale history would be a good start. If it shows up once - fair enough, maybe they own 1 real Louis Vuitton bag, hell, maybe even two... But if this person lists 5 in a month, you'd start asking questions surely?
We know, they know, everyone knows, Louis Vuitton don't sell there products like that, but are very selective who they supply. Its the same for many many brands.
I mean come on, you told me before you had studied magnetism, so working this out should be simple.
We know, they know, everyone knows, Louis Vuitton don't sell there products like that, but are very selective who they supply. Its the same for many many brands.
I mean come on, you told me before you had studied magnetism, so working this out should be simple.
Upvote
0
But this takes us down a very slippery slope. Maybe it's reasonable to request eBay to state how many of a specific item the seller has sold; buyers can draw their own conclusions. But it's very unreasonable to expect eBay to track the many millions of items that are sold using their system and to know which could be fraudulent. The established business model for sites such as eBay is to empower members of the community and let them run with it. If you don't do this, you end up with a highly centralized, big-brother structure.
I just finished reading a book called the Starfish and the Spider. It points out that many traditional companies, take Sony and MGM, are highly centralized. If you chop off their heads, they will die. Other companies are like the starfish. If you chop off a leg, it grows another; if you cut it in two, you get two starfish. Napster started down the decentralised path, and eMule is the ultimate example in that industry. Spiders try to protect their turf by suing, which just forces the starfish to become even more decentralized and impossible to go after. In many ways, spiders are history whereas the future lies with the starfish. The French government right now is behaving like a spider, and it's ultimately just going to make things worse.
That was a long time ago. I no longer remember anything about multidimensional integration, Bessel functions, and all the rest. I struggle to perform regression analyses these days, so you'll have to give me some leeway here.
Upvote
0
Its not unreasonable at all. If Google can index and return from billions of pages the most relevant results, so can eBay for their index which is tiny (and much better structured for searching) in comparison. They manage to track the users, the hits, the advertising, the profits, and all that cash in Paypal - so they can do this too.
Like I said, you just need to flag up items which we know can't be obtained in such a manner... Coupled with the number of times a person has sold such an item, and by checking the price which the items have been sold. I don't think anyone is asking for a 100% reliable system, but a good system which protects as many as possible, is possible.
We also know its not unreasonable because eBay do pull listings - which suggests the ability is in place.
(I don't agree with that Sony is highly centralised as its owned by Shareholders, and don't understand how to compare it with eBay - which itself has a central management, but owned by Shareholders. You'd need to cut off quite a few heads surely? ..... For £10 on Amazon it seemed worth buying tho so I'll give it a read when its delivered.)
The French government is allowed to act like a Spider. Its basically up to the French people about what is, and isn't, acceptable to them. There is no god given right to own a business in France doing as you please because its your "business model". You adhere to French model, or not at all.
But we must be careful not to shoehorn in an analogy's which in all honestly is very much different. Napster was the first large scale music sharing operation - not a "service" (in any paid for sense), but one bloke who wrote an application, and it must be said, was caught because it was centralised. (All the computers using the application contacted the same server)
eMule is different, an evolution on Napster, but both its development/management and operation are decentralised, which allows this service the ability to largely evade the long arm of the law. Even though it is decentralised, many people in the US, and some in the UK, have been taken to court for copyright infringement. But I'll have to say on flaky grounds most of the time in a legal definition of knowing who is truly sitting behind the computer monitor.
Both of these were/are certainly not "companies", but the name Napster lives on in a new guise these days which is. If its a company, it earns money, and you can track money on-line.
(Dare I say it is possible to shut down these networks, as traffic monitoring/shaping is already applied to "high-resource" systems like BitTorrent, but what incentive do ISP's have when it means people are using their service, and upgrading for higher speeds?)
The idea this is going to make things worse I don't understand, what ramifications do you foresee from the judgement? Because you've implied that things will get worse, and ultimately "big brother" type scenario, without actually putting much in detail.
That was a long time ago. I no longer remember anything about multidimensional integration, Bessel functions, and all the rest. I struggle to perform regression analyses these days, so you'll have to give me some leeway here.
lol
Upvote
0
Absolutely. Just as shops are legally responsible for the quality of the merchandise it sells.
I'm glad eBay have been spanked for this; perhaps it will set a precedent and force them to sort their act out. Time and time again, I've reported counterfeit goods and they do nothing because they profit directly from the sale.
Upvote
0
WH Smith do not facilitate, nor make money from, the sales of pirate DVDs and other counterfeit and illegal goods. eBay does and they should be prosecuted for this.
Sorry Steve, you do make some valid points about what is police-able, but I have very strong views on pirate and counterfeit goods, more so because my company used to develop video games and we were the victim of piracy at the other end.
Upvote
0
At the root of this issue is a general philosophy of life and of business:
1) Do we insist on centralised control, companies and organisations and governments that watch everything we do, everything we sell, and block this or that transaction based on what nanny thinks is best? In this scenario, individuals can't be trusted. Those awful sellers are just out to rip everyone off. Those naive buyers, poor souls, are being taken advantage of. They need clever, smart, protective authority to make sure their lives are safe.
2) Do we trust individuals? In this scenario, we empower individuals to decide the rules of the game. They are entrepreneurial and know how to sell value. They are savvy buyers who know to avoid shady deals - or at least accept the risk associated with a shady deal. They are educated and smart and don't need the government or anyone else to tell them what they can and cannot do. Ratings and discussion forums etc. may help to disseminate information freely, but individuals are in charge.
The Internet has pushed many industries from the first business model to the second. It has democratised business, and that's a wonderful thing. Now we see one of several backlashes, a government that believes it knows best and tries to force companies back into the mode of being the grand protector - at point of law, no less. This has major implications for any of us who run an Internet-based business. Frankly, it's setting us back many years. We've moved on from the socialised, "nanny knows best" mentality. We're now living in a world where people matter and have what it takes to look out for themselves. As for those in genuine need of help, they'll get far more from groups of individuals than they ever will from any government or centralised company.
Empower people and customers and anything is possible. Enforce rules and try to protect and it will drain the life out of any company. Let's push for a world full of opportunity and adventure and, yes, personal responsibility. The awful alternative is a world of entitlement and litigation and nanny knows best.
1) Do we insist on centralised control, companies and organisations and governments that watch everything we do, everything we sell, and block this or that transaction based on what nanny thinks is best? In this scenario, individuals can't be trusted. Those awful sellers are just out to rip everyone off. Those naive buyers, poor souls, are being taken advantage of. They need clever, smart, protective authority to make sure their lives are safe.
2) Do we trust individuals? In this scenario, we empower individuals to decide the rules of the game. They are entrepreneurial and know how to sell value. They are savvy buyers who know to avoid shady deals - or at least accept the risk associated with a shady deal. They are educated and smart and don't need the government or anyone else to tell them what they can and cannot do. Ratings and discussion forums etc. may help to disseminate information freely, but individuals are in charge.
The Internet has pushed many industries from the first business model to the second. It has democratised business, and that's a wonderful thing. Now we see one of several backlashes, a government that believes it knows best and tries to force companies back into the mode of being the grand protector - at point of law, no less. This has major implications for any of us who run an Internet-based business. Frankly, it's setting us back many years. We've moved on from the socialised, "nanny knows best" mentality. We're now living in a world where people matter and have what it takes to look out for themselves. As for those in genuine need of help, they'll get far more from groups of individuals than they ever will from any government or centralised company.
Empower people and customers and anything is possible. Enforce rules and try to protect and it will drain the life out of any company. Let's push for a world full of opportunity and adventure and, yes, personal responsibility. The awful alternative is a world of entitlement and litigation and nanny knows best.
Upvote
0
You really shouldn't bring philosophy into this discussion as different people have different philosophical outlooks...
At the root of this issue, to me, is a general philosophy of what is legal and what is illegal, or what is right and what is wrong, and should a legitimate company be facilitating and profiteering from that which is illegal and wrong.
Upvote
0
Wasn't eBay started by a Frenchman? They'll probably go and burn some sheep now.
Going back to the shop analogy, if the precint owner could plead ignorance in that they didn't do one iota of management then there is a point to consider. As it stands, eBay profits and does everything it's way, so there has to be some culpability. eBay HAS onus & responsibility to protect the people that provide it's revenue/customers, ad don't forget it makes money from Sellers primarily. Therefore, by extension, scammers put money - to a partial or large degree - in eBay's pockets. eBay often enforces it's policies at expense of common sense and in such a dogmatic way, that if it really, really wanted to (and it MAY have to now) it COULD face the underlying issue here. It hasn't done, therefore time to bend over and sing Moon River.
I've been a victim of eBay operating it's policies from the Goebells school of management,can't help feeling there's something karmic to all this.
ebay's answer to counterfeiting? Primarily, to ask sellers to state the goods are selling aren't hooky by clicking an extra web-page. Not exactly a major deterrent to the serious level snide merchancts (of which I'd suggest these Hermes items are). Crikey, if the courts went after every Armani Jeans snide the courts would bog down as they did with the bank charges debacle.
Going back to the shop analogy, if the precint owner could plead ignorance in that they didn't do one iota of management then there is a point to consider. As it stands, eBay profits and does everything it's way, so there has to be some culpability. eBay HAS onus & responsibility to protect the people that provide it's revenue/customers, ad don't forget it makes money from Sellers primarily. Therefore, by extension, scammers put money - to a partial or large degree - in eBay's pockets. eBay often enforces it's policies at expense of common sense and in such a dogmatic way, that if it really, really wanted to (and it MAY have to now) it COULD face the underlying issue here. It hasn't done, therefore time to bend over and sing Moon River.
I've been a victim of eBay operating it's policies from the Goebells school of management,can't help feeling there's something karmic to all this.
ebay's answer to counterfeiting? Primarily, to ask sellers to state the goods are selling aren't hooky by clicking an extra web-page. Not exactly a major deterrent to the serious level snide merchancts (of which I'd suggest these Hermes items are). Crikey, if the courts went after every Armani Jeans snide the courts would bog down as they did with the bank charges debacle.
Upvote
0
What no-one has mentioned is that the buyer is unlikely to be an innocent victim but will know that he or she is buying a fake Hermes handbag like you do when you buy one from a street seller on holiday. It is the look, the label and the price they care about, not the authenticity of the product.
And of course Ebay know full well what is going on otherwise they wouldn't pull my auctions when I innocently in my effort to describe things properly put things like "Missoni style cardigan" or "dress embroidered in a similar style to Monsoon".
So it is buyer, seller and Ebay all profiting to the detriment of Hermes or whoever and they all need to be stopped. Ebay can police this quite easily as it is obvious which goods are fake and which genuine.
And of course Ebay know full well what is going on otherwise they wouldn't pull my auctions when I innocently in my effort to describe things properly put things like "Missoni style cardigan" or "dress embroidered in a similar style to Monsoon".
So it is buyer, seller and Ebay all profiting to the detriment of Hermes or whoever and they all need to be stopped. Ebay can police this quite easily as it is obvious which goods are fake and which genuine.
Upvote
0
Denise, good point, but it's far from an equal balance amongst the three parties though is it? How many sellers know they are selling fakes? A high proportion I'd suggest. How many sellers know they are buying fakes? A far lower degree clearly - I feel there are more guilty sellers than culpable buyers, very much so.
A lot of buyers are naive & think they're getting a bargain - they either EXPECT eBay to police counterfeiting, or don;t even consider the chance of themselves being suckered. We can all say 'caveat emptor' or whatever, but there will always be foolish buyers that ignore the 'if something seems too good to be true, it probably is' rationale.
Even experienced buyers get conned too - to suggest the snide merchants are easily spotted is too simplistic. Sometimes for instance, an item is resold and the seller actually sells an item innocently. Okay, its their responsibility to ensure it's not fake legally and is fit for purpose, but there is a world of difference between a casual, at home seller and some toerag thief operating a cynical (often highly professional) operation.
one of the biggest giveaways for snide goods is often the price. However, people have been known to pay similar prices for hooky goods as authentic items. Conversely, certain markets - e.g designer clothing - has suffered also from fakes in that buyers often won't pay the going rate for goods (that may be 100% authentic) as eBay has effectively flattened the market due to high amounts of fakes.
A lot of buyers are naive & think they're getting a bargain - they either EXPECT eBay to police counterfeiting, or don;t even consider the chance of themselves being suckered. We can all say 'caveat emptor' or whatever, but there will always be foolish buyers that ignore the 'if something seems too good to be true, it probably is' rationale.
Even experienced buyers get conned too - to suggest the snide merchants are easily spotted is too simplistic. Sometimes for instance, an item is resold and the seller actually sells an item innocently. Okay, its their responsibility to ensure it's not fake legally and is fit for purpose, but there is a world of difference between a casual, at home seller and some toerag thief operating a cynical (often highly professional) operation.
one of the biggest giveaways for snide goods is often the price. However, people have been known to pay similar prices for hooky goods as authentic items. Conversely, certain markets - e.g designer clothing - has suffered also from fakes in that buyers often won't pay the going rate for goods (that may be 100% authentic) as eBay has effectively flattened the market due to high amounts of fakes.
Upvote
0
M
MH1
- Original Poster
- #35
I find it strange that some people seem to think that ebay by calling themselves a "meeting place" instead of an auction or shop, yet still offering auctions and shop facilities, ebay should be allowed to operate on different criteria to everyone else.
Ebay should operate under the same laws as shops and auction houses.
As for counterfeit goods, ebay can easily ask for proof of authenticity as a genuine auction house would before allowing a listing.
Ebay should operate under the same laws as shops and auction houses.
As for counterfeit goods, ebay can easily ask for proof of authenticity as a genuine auction house would before allowing a listing.
Upvote
0
If they did that, they could be accused of warehousing and hence responsible for what people sell. But they are not. They are not a shop. They do not sell goods. They just bring people together and offer tools to support buying and selling online. Courts have ruled time and again that they are a neutral party that facilitates the buying and selling process. Any change to this principle has huge implications to anyone who offers an online service. Really, it would set us back many years.
In the end, though, you can't fight a trend. eBay and Amazon and others have changed the way we do things. Governments can try all they like to implement rulings like this. If they stop eBay, another more decentralised company will pop up in weeks. They're fighting a losing battle.
Upvote
0
It's never stopped me before.
I'm an opinionated and irritating person, but I believe in principles and will fight for them. Freedom of the individual over any type of centralised authority that believes it knows best is one of them. In the end, I trust individuals far more than government. Left to ourselves, we'd sort out problems like the sale of knock-off goods. Just give us the tools.
Upvote
0
And how, might I ask, do they 'know'? The people in the best position to know are buyers and other sellers. With appropriate tools (such as ratings, but there could be others), the community would sort it out themselves. If you read the biography of eBay, you'll see that their community of users has come to the rescue time and again.
eBay's bigger problem might be that they have lost sight of their user community. Over time, they've shifted from being committed to their community to being committed to their shareholders, as if the two are mutually exclusive, but they are not. Additional tools by which the community could monitor itself is the best solution. Please, please don't let's move to some centralised bureaucracy that believes is knows best. I don't want anyone telling me what I can and cannot buy or say or do.
Upvote
0
Someone mentioned that eBay now requires sellers to 'sign' an additional form to confirm they are not selling dodgy goods. Why do you think this is? It's to ensure that, in a court of law, sellers are held responsible for their actions. It's a disclaimer, and that's an important part of our legal system. A disclaimer, used in the right way, ensures you won't be held responsible for something wrong or illegal performed by someone else, especially when you're not in a position to know that they did. In such a situation, you are most definitely not an accessory.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
SEO in the Age of AI: What UK Small Businesses Actually Need to KnowTL;DR Search has shifted from "ten blue links" to answer engines, and...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Carphone Warehouse, Microsoft and Uber Have in Common: They Started in a DownturnThere's a comforting myth that you need a booming economy to start...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Makes a Small Business Actually Sellable?There's a question that a lot of small business owners never think to...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Why Your Team Keeps Asking the Same Questions (And What to Actually Do About It)Every small business owner knows the moment. You're halfway through...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
