posted on March 10, 2004 06:53:50 PM new
I had a person email me a few days ago, and tell me I could not sell her product that she produced. A set of CD's with some interviews.
She made these available to the public, and they are distributed through the library system of the State she lives in.
For a donation to the State Library system, you can get a set of these CD's.
They even advertise what a great gift these make.
Here is the kicker.
We have an original set of the CD's and decided to sell them on eBay.
She sees it, or hears about it and tells us we do not have permission to sell her product on eBay.
We inform her we purchased it and have the right, not to the content, but to the product, and can give it away or sell it.
She gets with the Library System, who is profiting from the sale of these CD-Sets.
They get, probably what is a Deputy Attorney with the State, to write us and say we are violating the copyrights of the producer.
We again inform them that we have right to sell products we own, that have been made available to the public by the producer.
They then tell us they need receipts for the item or it is not genuine.
We are thinking, a receipt does not make something genuine, and deny their request.
They send paperwork to ebay saying we are infringing on their copyright.
EBay pulls our item, and gives us a warning.
Now we have a "strike" against us and the other person, in our view, is totally wrong.
Has anyone ever had something like this happen, and had good results defending your right to sell with eBay?
posted on March 10, 2004 07:04:11 PM new
I had a Chanel Scarf I ended up giving away because I couldn't "prove" it was authentic, although I believe it was.
Here's the AuctionBytes search page on Vero. There is someone that's taken them on and won, although I certainly wouldn't want to do it.
posted on March 10, 2004 08:26:09 PM new
It happens all the time. I make movies and people sell them on ebay. I have no right to claim copyright infringement as they are protected by something I believe is called a First Buyers Act. These copyright holders you are talking about are just a bunch of whiney people. I don't think you have anything to worry about.
posted on March 10, 2004 09:48:36 PM new
Mass,, Nothing to Worry about? Their auction was killed! It's not a worry situation in the least,,,,It's a WHY WAS MY AUCTION KILLED!!!!!!!!!!
1.Please, OH please, !.BEFORE Bidding.
2.NPB's have No rights,Posting. NEED be BLOCKED by e bay.(But they Ain't)Upon final filing NPB. Hoops.
3.Naru's. Goodbye after 3,DIFFERENT, Sellers, file NPB's. Negs do nothing. filing 4 PARTIAL fees DOES.
4.NEGATIVE feedback!!! Oops. Try giving Neg. AGAIN in 3, BUSINESS days.
5.E bay release K's of DEAD I.D's even The PHONE Co. 0 activity in 5 years?
6.E bay,Show bidders STATE during auction for those NON ers, NO SHIPPING! Seller in Calif. Bidder in N.Y.?? KILL Bid And BLOCKED!
If you agree WRITE e bay. If you don't ,one of these will surely bite you RIGHT in the,,,,,
posted on March 11, 2004 10:21:39 AM new
would the receipt show where it is purchased?
then they will know if it is legit.
-sig file -------the lobster in the boiling pot of water who tries to prevent the others from climbing out.
posted on March 11, 2004 10:25:41 AM new
We were not the first recipient of the set.
They requested a receipt to their organization.
It would not have helped anyway, as they never really backed down to their claim that we did not have the right to re-sell.
They were just trying to come up with lots of reasons why we could not sell it, after there was some possibility of them not being correct on the first point.
Basically, we felt coerced.
Which basically is force, or threat of force, to keep someone from doing what they have the legal right to do.
This did not sit well with the owner of our Corporation.
posted on March 11, 2004 10:45:06 AM new
File a counter notice.
In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:
The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]
If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)]
posted on March 11, 2004 10:45:13 AM new
gous said,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We were not the first recipient of the set.
They requested a receipt to their organization.
This did not sit well with the owner of our Corporation.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
are you just selling one copy which happens to be sitting around and THE OWNER wants to get rid of it?? or do you have more to sell??
more to sell is what worries them??
-sig file -------the lobster in the boiling pot of water who tries to prevent the others from climbing out.
posted on March 11, 2004 03:08:51 PM new
This is very interesting. I would agree with Twelvepole.
I would also think their claim to the rights would pose a monopoly or would be against anti-trust laws.
Something very similar happened to me with a hunting sound enhancer that I found in a bag of packing peanuts my girlfriend brought home one day. A person came into her office and asked if she could use peanuts. So my girlfriend took them knowing I would use them. The bag sat for a month or two, and when I finally used them I found a pair of ear enhancers from a company called Pro Ears. I listed them, and the next day I received an email from a rep. I ignored it because it was his personal email address with hotmail. Another day went by, and I received an email from his company telling me I was in breach of anti-compitition laws and that they had exclusive rights to sell it themselves. The auction was only for 3 days, so it went through its course, and ended with a high bidder, but a few hours after it ended ebay sent me notice that they filed under the Vero system. I immediately emailed ebay and explained them my case. They said I was in the right because I have the rights to sell something that I am the rightful ownwer of. They told me I could relist it and they would notify the Vero participant that I didn't break any rules for this item. Ironically, I emailed someone else who was selling them, and they said they received the same crap from Pro Ears. Ironically, they were a sporting goods store that were "Authorized Agents" of Pro Ears.
I would say you have a right to sell the CD collection provided it is an authorized version of the cd. Providing a receipt is NOT proof of it being authorized. If this Vero participant wants proof it is authorized, they should consider numbering their "art" and signing it, or using some other means to proove it is authentic. Geez, could you imagine if every artist, musician, etc did this whenever you attempted to sell a piece of art or a cd?
It is obvious that they are trying to bully you into laying down to their demands. Don't let them get away with it because this is exactly what they hope will happen. If they do it too many times and Ebay catches them lying, they will get booted off of Vero.
posted on March 11, 2004 04:29:35 PM new
I was a VERO for a product. There were many auctions that I ended. All the auctions that I ended were because I could tell for sure that the offered item was a countefeit. This amounted to less than 1% of the total offerings of the product on Ebay. As I understand the VERO process, I was allowed to end auctions in a case where I felt that the item was not genuine. If an item is genuine then an owner has a right to sell it.
.
.
.I never had anyone dispute any of the auctions that I ended(why would they, their goods were obviously counterfeit). It is my understanding that the way the VERO sysyem is set up it makes it very easy for a VERO to end auctions indiscrimately. A vero for ABC could easily end all the ABC auctions if they wanted. The VERO system also makes it very hard and time consuming to be successful in a dispute. Each case is different, and in your case it seems like you do have a right to sell your tape, if you can prove that it's an original.....if you want to take the time to fight the battle to begin with. How much is the tape worth?
!.BEFORE Bidding. 
. NEED be BLOCKED by e bay.(But they Ain't)Upon final filing NPB. Hoops.
after 3,DIFFERENT, Sellers, file NPB's. Negs do nothing. filing 4 PARTIAL fees DOES.
,one of these will surely bite you RIGHT in the,,,,,