posted on January 10, 2002 05:35:14 PM new
All you people just crack me up. Someone finally takes eBay to task and you all slamblast him!!! I say, "BRAVO" to anyone who has the money to at least "try" and make eBay treat people fairly. For crying out loud....the least you could do is cheer him on! Don't worry....it won't even put a dent in eBay's pocket, so you all won't be out of an Auction Site!<p>
I was shut down....NO WARNING GIVEN.....for having my Web Site Address "typed" into my write up. I had NO link and my Web Site had NO prices, NO shopping cart, and I was not underselling my eBay auctions to people. My auction made the statement that "Special orders were welcome." At the time, I did not think I was doing anything wrong because I did not have any links and I was not selling on the side for less money than the auctions.....WHY would I? I would be defeating my own purpose! OK, so I was breaking the rules (I found out in the end), BUT.....did I get a warning and given a chance to remove the offenses????? NO!<p>
Now.......In another case that I happen to know ABSOLUTELY about.....A friend of my reported a seller (who just happened to be a BIG seller and making more bucks for eBay than I), that had their WeB Site Address as a moving link AND had the address in the description 3 .... I said THREE times! They had their Web Address as their "Location."
They also had their Web Address as their Seller Name
(we found out this is OK too, for some but not for all). Now, if you went to their Web Site, not only were all the items listed they sell, but they had prices AND a shopping cart! eBay gave them a WARNING, so they
just removed the link but left the moving bar and the other addresses.<p>
My friend had to report them FOUR times before eBay FINALLY shut them down and suspended them.<p>
So.....don't try and tell me that eBay applies all rules the same and all punishments the same.....There is no doubt in my mind, that if you are a BIG seller, you are allowed to "slide" a little more than if you are just a little "peon."
ALSO.....Don't you think a Corporation like eBay can afford to police their own rules instead of making their customers "tattle" on each other....OH PLEASE!!!
posted on January 11, 2002 05:59:17 AM new
I don't think any of us would disagree that eBay needs to be spanked, but I think this is one "David" that doesn't have a chance against that "Goliath".
eBay have been challenged a few times due to their "you're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent, and we won't let you in on what proof we have nor will we invite you to your own trial, and as a matter of fact, we already had your trial and you lost ... too bad, so sad" philosophy.
Newbies get pissed off with this attitude but us oldtimers are kinda used to it.
The original poster should just walk away from eBay for awhile ... there is Life after eBay
posted on January 11, 2002 04:27:15 PM new
This guy must have filed the case himself as no lawyer would do it because 40% of nothing is nothing. At least he's getting free therapy by going through the motions.
posted on January 11, 2002 08:32:05 PM new
I would like to say one thing reguarding ebay and there many auctions, it is not only possible to monitor them all but should be done on a daily basis. They can afford to have real people do this, one person on a 8 hour shift should be able to do hundreds of listings with no problem, good management would have had this in place by now. If they have policies set up then they are responsible to uphold those policies, we should not have to inform them of problems with listing [i'll gladly do that if they put me on payroll however]. Every listing should be dealt with the same no exceptions and could even be done at time of listing, if they don't do this then it shows unfairness and even prejudice. If an item gets listed then it shoud stay no matter who complaims because ebay didn't catch the problem at time of listing then it there fault and they should let it ride. But in the end if the courts side with them the people who use ebay can change things in only one way, stop using ebay. Sometimes as with any commercial operation the only way to get them to listen is to boycott the services and if enough people do this even the mighty ebay will have take notice.
posted on January 11, 2002 08:33:16 PM new
Well, I too just had a legal auction cancelled by eBay, with no justification. From my experience in 6 years of dealing with eBay, it wasn't worth my time to argue the issue. Obvious, it was a competing seller trying to rid themselves of competition.
BUT, the issue is, it was a legal product, not connected to any Vero Issue, and was cancelled for totally inapplicable reasons.
I'll be interested in how this law suit progresses.
Perhaps "interference with Interstate Commerce," would be another good ground.
posted on January 12, 2002 07:59:39 AM new
I'm surprised everyone keeps overlooking the obvious, which is, and I ask again,-- "what is the *subject matter* of the photos in question"?
The original poster said:
This lawsuit is not related to any copyright issue. The items were original photographs. While eBay canceled some photographs of one seller that it deemed "inappropriate," it looked the other way, or didn't look at all, with photographs of other sellers'.
So the auction(s) in question were *not* cancelled because of copyright issues. The only thing left really is the subject matter of the pics, and since the poster says the pics were "original photos", then he can't use the photos of other sellers as examples of sellers "getting away" with something, because by default no other seller can be selling the _same_ pics because they are *original*.
As eBay tends to err on the side of caution, I suspect that the subject matter of these photos will turn out to be somewhat controversial.
posted on February 25, 2002 02:06:01 PM new
Default judgment to be taken against eBay, Inc. Process was served on Margaret Whitman on January 31, 2002, but no answer as of February 25, 2002.
posted on February 25, 2002 03:02:18 PM new
If ebay was smart, the only auctions it would pull would be those that circumvent fees, and those which they are notified of by the owners of IP items.
All else may become a can of worms they don't want opened.
posted on February 25, 2002 04:57:15 PM new
I frankly don't see that you have any more than a snowball's chance of winning a suit, but I could be wrong. There are innumerable instances where one auction was stopped while another was not. I bought software on eBay and tried reselling it on same after it didn't work for me, but my auction was shut down by the VERO nazis. What's wrong with this picture?
Inconsistencies are part and parcel of life on planet earth. eBay, for better or worse, doesn't evenly apply most of the rules it has set up. Neither does anyone else.
posted on February 26, 2002 07:50:00 AM new
eBay's "Arbitration Agreement" says "Any LEGAL controversy or LEGAL claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or our services, excluding legal action taken by eBay to collect our fees and/or recover damages for, or obtain an injunction relating to, the eBay side operations, intellectual property, and our services, shall be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. * * *"
This "Arbitration Agreement" clearly does not cover EQUITABLE controversies or EQUITABLE claims. According to the Black's Law Dictionary, "the term 'equity' denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men." Gilles v. Department of Human Resources Development, 11 Cal.3d 313, 113 Cal.Rptr. 374, 380, 521 P.2d 110.
This law suit is an equitable suit since it's about the unfair, arbitrary, and capricious conducts of eBay.
posted on March 1, 2002 08:22:04 AM new
Dear Ms. Willoughby,
I would appreciate it very much if eBay would hire censors with an IQ of at
least 60.
Clearly, the censor here does not know the difference between hiding a
genitalia from grabbing a genitalia. If you will take a look at those photos
and let me know exactly the objectionable ground, if any. Based on the
literal interpretation of that censor, you can have far more explicit photo
and yet cannot have artistic photos. eBay may as well call it the Taliban
section instead of the Gay section. How can hands and genitalia that you do
not see violate the rule? Please restore those items at your earliest
convenience. Thank you.
Patrick Wu
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:36 AM
Subject: LP Notice: eBay Auction(s) Cancelled - Mature Audiences Violation
> Dear Otoko Art ([email protected]),
>
> We appreciate that you chose eBay to list the following items:
>
>
> 1709672652 RH00092024. Original 5x7 Male Nude
> 1709502985 TA00060820. Original 5x7 Male Nude
> 1709502965 RH00092023. Original 5x7 Male Nude
> 1709502934 RE02010901. Original 5x7 Male Nude
> 1709351256 ZW02011628. Original 5x7 Male Nude
>
>
>
> However, your listings were in violation of eBay's listing policies. We
would like to take this opportunity to let you know what parts of your
listings are not allowed.
>
> Your listings contained the following information:
>
> "pictures of grabing genitalia"
>
** Warnging: Mature Audience only **
Those photos can be seen at
http://wupatrick.com/auctions/RH000920/RH00092024.jpg
http://wupatrick.com/auctions/RH000920/RH00092023.jpg
http://wupatrick.com/auctions/ZW020116/ZW02011628.jpg
http://wupatrick.com/auctions/TA000608/TA00060820.jpg
http://wupatrick.com/auctions/RE020109/RE02010901.jpg
posted on March 1, 2002 08:57:02 AM new
Thanks for providing more information. I don't find your art particularly offensive, though I don't care for gay photos. Whether your images are art or pornography is something eBay will have to decide, because it is their venue and they decide what is appropriate. If eBay allows you to list your photos in the Adults Only category (as apparently they do), you should count yourself lucky. IMO, your lawsuit doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
posted on March 1, 2002 10:51:03 AM new
Please pardon my intrusion, but this is a subject about which I do know a little:
As the founder and past administrator of a very large dealer database with some tens of millions of records in it (whose name you would recognize), it is very unlikely that eBay will be held accountable for "arbitrary or capricious" behavior.
I was regularly called to account by dealers for the exact same problem in my system: "Hey, how come you deleted my records but you let Joe Blow get away with it?" The answer, in those case, was always the same: "Thanks for letting me know. Your records are history."
People in general do not comprehend very large numbers, nor the extraordinary implications of them. Whatever spin doctoring eBay may put on their policing activities, rest assured that they are utterly, hopelessly swamped and that this will probably never change.
In fact, in eBay's case, the impossibility of policing such massive numbers of records on a daily basis is beyond any question and can be easily demonstrated. All eBay really has to do is (1) show that they possess automated policing software and (2) explain how it works to the satisfaction of a judge. To the best of my knowledge, they designed their software just like I designed mine: to look for specific terms, phrases, and anomolies in records that point to possible policy infractions. If it's a blatant infraction (like a URL in a Title), the record gets pulled automatically.
But what if it's not so blatant? Most of them fall into this category. What most people fail to understand is that at that point, a live human being must intervene, read the record, determine empirically if a violation has occurred, and take appropriate action.
There are 86,400 seconds in a 24-hour day. How many records could you do? The answer is a tiny, tiny fraction. So, you pull all of a dealer's records based on a single infraction. That's the company's decision. People may not like it, but that's the way it is. The company protects itself.
As far as policy goes, stated another way: It matters not whether your particular record violates a policy and you were caught, while someone else who violated the same policy did not get caught - YET. If such a thing were enforced as a violation of law, the only fair recourse for the court would be to declare that eBay (and all other companies like it) are prohibited from conducting business until such time that satisfactory measures are put in place to prevent further occurrances. In other words, "You can do business when computers can think!" That is simply not going to happen.
The price for individuality is the possibility that someone won't agree with you. One possibility would be to standardize and homogenize templates such that fully-automated policing is possible, but I doubt many people would want to participate in such an environment.
I'd like anyone here who has never had a live, dealer-driven system under their control to imagine what you would say to your contemporaries when you're asked in real life: "What are you going to do about this problem?" Think about it before answering, because you will personally be held accountable for its success or failure.
Someone said something about "hiring 50,000 people to police auctions." Uh huh. Sure. Assuming for an instant such a thing actually happened, even on a very tiny scale, just 100 people, that translates into one thing only: your costs go up, BIG time.
Just so you know: I'm not on anybody's "side" here -- I'm telling you how it was, and how it still is. Bottom Line Reality Check: This is a barely-ready-for-prime-time technology.
posted on March 1, 2002 12:56:05 PM new
The issue isn't about what is pornography, nor what software eBay uses.
The issue is contactual.
Every seller on eBay is under the same contract with eBay- except those like Disney who have a different deal.
This isn't about whether eBay can, will, or can afford to "police" its site.
The issue is whether eBay can treat people differently who are under the same contract.
Think about it, there is no other business that can do it. And generally, if a party to a contract allows and otherwise accepts actions that would be a breach of the contract, he is considered to have radified those new conditions as within the bounds of the contract.
