posted on May 15, 2003 08:53:03 AM new
I think eBay is also being less than honest about how many buyers get ripped off on the site. I think eBay puts out numbers and percentages way lower than what is really going on.
posted on May 15, 2003 09:00:14 AM new
I agree. Its all about image, there is just too much money involved. Their figures are way off and they know it.
posted on May 15, 2003 03:29:03 PM new
"... "But the ban went into effect on Jan. 15 for UPS uniforms," [Purseglove] emphasized, adding that no UPS sales have been allowed since then. In fact, they would be "VeRO'd," the term for an internal eBay program that automatically ends auctions of banned items. ..."
More lies. Vero is not an automatic end-auction program.
posted on May 15, 2003 03:52:57 PM new
It kind of is but not in the sense you are thinking. VeRO is a program that copyight holders have joined into ith ebay which allows them to have auctions which they believe to be violating their copyrights to be ended. It deinately is not automatic and there is a lack of organization in it. It is up to the owner of the copyright and not ebay to find the offenders and that is where it gets murky.
posted on May 15, 2003 05:59:36 PM new
VeRO isn't too murky and it is not unique to eBay. VeRo is nothing more than what the Federal statutes from the DMCA bill demands of all ISPs.
Anyone who provides the proper information and forms to any internet site can have material taken down.
posted on May 15, 2003 06:26:27 PM new
When I said murky Reamond I was referring to the implimentation on ebay. I recently had an item pulled from ebay on a VeRo violation. No big deal except for the fact that there were 15 auctions for identical items runnng at the time which were not shut down. There if you do a search for thiis item by title - you will find at least 8 of them in the first of 3 pages of listings. This is what I mean by murky.
posted on May 16, 2003 07:16:17 AM new
Not really murky. The DMCA allows take downs only by the intellectual property owner or their designated agent.
eBay, AOL, MSN, Vendio, are under no obligation to police material posted by others on their site. They need only act when an intellectual property owner/agent properly informs them of the exact material they claim infringes.
The ISP is not required to make any judgement regarding the veracity of the complaint, they either take the material down or face vicarious liability.
This is exactly how AOL,MSN etc., lobbied the Congress for the law to be. AOL claimed they would be sued out of existence if they were liable for material posted by customers and had to police it. eBay has been successful in court on numerous occaisions using this position on everything from infringement by members to the sales of fradualent sports autographs. eBay can not be responsible for infringing material posted on their site by members, unless they are properly notified and then refuse to remove the material.
The "murky" situation you refer to is exactly how the statute works. If the owner/agent reports only one auction, it is the only auction that will be taken down, if 5 auctions out of 100 are reported, only 5 will be taken down. eBay has nothing to gain by taking auctions down without being notified by the owner/agent. If fact, it might even jeopardise the immunity if it started policing the site.
Take down notices can only come from owner/agents, that is why when non-owners report like violations, eBay doesn't take them down.
However, don't confuse VeRO take downs with eBay policy take downs. Anyone can report an ebay policy violation.
