ebay is a haven for idiocy....

OK, maybe not. Let's just say (tmPL) it offends MY sense of ethics.

Jon E

Reply to
Jon Endres, PE
Loading thread data ...

But it is very distastful.

Reply to
Eddie Munster

Hi Greg (and all in the above part of this thread),

Ethical standards differ, based on the (metaphysical) assumptions of your particular ethical system.

It would be more worthwhile to discuss this in terms of legality. What he's doing is perfectly legal and done by many resellers (with the exception of using copyrighted images if he has done that...).

Ethically, I would ask what service he is adding to his source to justify raising the price (and if the service is worth the difference). The only argument I can imagine this character has is that he offers the product in a venue the source does not (I'm presuming LV does not sell on ebay. I may be wrong). So, by my system of ethics what he is doing is dishonest and therefore unethical, but perfectly legal.

Caveat emptor, H

Reply to
Hylourgos

I looked. Several of the feedbacks are duplicates and some are when he was a buyer, not a seller. So the actual total is somewhat less. I don't know how or if they're faked, but I did notice that an item number was not given on any.

Reply to
Larry Blanchard
Reply to
Angelo Castellano pos

Stickdoctor:

This item is no longer on eBay. If Robin Lee reported use of copyrighted material, that is a violation that eBay would most likely enforce.

So he's gone for now!

MJ Wallace

Reply to
MJ Wallace

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 04:06:30 GMT, Steve Knight brought forth from the murky depths:

And they took the post down. "Invalid Item"

.-. Life is short. Eat dessert first! ---

formatting link
Comprehensive Website Development

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Amen, Charlie. They're a breath of fresh air and proof that "ethical success" is not an oxymoron.

djb

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

And that's just PART of what might be wrong with this society...ethics should be a part of EVERYTHING you do.

But that's just my take on it...YMMV

Mike

Reply to
The Davenports

... snip

Doesn't seem like anything should be done. You can't stop buyers from being uninformed about actual prices, and you shouldn't be able to stop anyone from reselling what they have legitimately purchased.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant, I've been reading quite a bit about digital rights management lately and it's making me a bit edgy about the degree of control in perpetuity some businesses think they should have over what they have sold. Rob, I know that this was not your intention, your final statement just hit me as slightly wrong.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

I think you may have missed part of Rob's point- if Lee Valley listed the same items, they would come up on the same searches that returned the scalper. then anyone who would have been looking at those auctions would also be looking at Lee Valley's auctions.

Reply to
Bridger

No, I got that point, the part that got me was the "other than ...., there's not much that can be done.", somehow leaving the impression that there should be a means and mechanism to be able to do more to shut down such activities. That was what raised the hairs on the back of my neck. There is a significant effort on the part of some folks to give the original seller of various goods rights to dictate how you dispose of those goods in the future, this is why I raised my concerns. As an example, the RIAA had e-bay cancel some auctions for a CD (Britney Spears or Madonna?) that some people had listed. These CD's were legally obtained by the people listing them on e-bay when they bought jeans at The Gap; a free CD was given with each pair. For whatever reason, these folks didn't want the CD (maybe they like those two artists as much as I do) and decided that rather than just throwing them away, auctioning them off on e-bay would be a good way to get rid of them. RIAA somehow felt that such activities were somehow violating the RIAA's rights in those CD's. I am just concerned about a mindset that has the idea that "I wish there was more that could be done"

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Can you guess why there are two types of recordable CD media available at the computer store? One for data and one for music. Now there is realy no difference ..... except you pay royalitys for the music you might record on the music CD's. To my way of thinking if you pay the royality then it is the same as if you bought the real CD and you should have the same rights to use or dispose of it as you see fit.

Same with DAT tape .... a portion of the sales price is royality for music you might record on it. In fact the music industry kept DAT tape machines out of the USA for many years while they hashed out a way to get some of the money.

William Lee

Reply to
WilleeCue

Or more likely don't know they got taken. It's only obvious if you know the item can be purchased cheaper, but then if the buyer knew that they would have done so. I'm always amazed at the HF resales, but then I know HF exists. If I didn't know about HF I would think the resale prices are reasonable.

Reply to
Larry C in Auburn, WA

Not at all - I have 291 positives and no negatives (actually 321 positives but some are duplicates). I describe items accurately, respond to questions promptly and ship immediately upon receipt of payment whenever I sell. When I buy, I contact the seller promptly and pay as soon as I have a total. When you do that you should receive all positive feedback. Unfortunately, you can't protect everyone from their own stupidity. I've seen people at live auctions bid used items up beyond the new retail price- saw several examples a few weeks ago. All you can do is shake your head and wonder why they didn't do a little research.

Reply to
Tom

OK, I waited a bit to let Rob respond first.

Mark, I agree with you. mostly. I can see an argument that Lee Valley should be able to have some say in who the dealers of their products are- or at least know WHO they are. calling some ebay hustler a dealer may be a stretch, but there is a line there somewhere. the guy was buying them strictly to sell them.

I have no sympathy for the riaa. they screw the musicians and the fans at the expense of a few corporate executives. this is a clear case of racketeering, imo.

Bridger

Reply to
Bridger

Sorry Mark -

This is another guy who had previously been using our images....as long as he uses his own - he's certainly free to sell what he wants.

The thing is - I'm the one who gets the complaints about the high prices on products we produce...which is why I have to say "there's not much that can be done"... I'm not about to defend people who are taking advantage of others, so I really don't think that a choice of words that implies disapproval is out of line at all...

Sure he's within his rights to take advantage of the ill-informed...but no-one has to like it, nor respect it - and I certainly don't.

Sincerely -

Rob Lee

formatting link
>

Reply to
Rob Lee

Agreed. "Legal" and "ethical" are not synonyms.

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

Rob, I agree that there is nothing wrong with your disapproval. My only concern was the implication that there should be something that could be done about it (other than a few good strong wacks with a Klown Hamma).

One wouldn't expect you to defend the actions of someone acting unethically, especially when it is your products that they are abusing. If they use your copyrighted images, best of luck to you in smacking some sense into them.

... and I certainly agree with that sentiment. Knowing that there are uninformed people is one thing, taking advantage of them something else entirely.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Hi again Mark...

Just re-read my reply from yesterday - and thought it reads a bit on the "crusty" side...certainly wasn't the intent..!

I also share a concern about rights to material (and actions)...we have an organisation up here just like RIAA - called SOCAN...the "music police"... they're gleefully collecting license fees for public performance of music (with goverment blessing) - which essentially means playing a radio in public or in a workplace. They hit every coffee shop, dentist, retail store etc. .The "assessment" we received (based on square footage) for our stores was in the neigborhood of $6000 per year. While I certainly believe that performance artists deserve the fruits of their labors, I can't find how they derive any benefit from the agencies collecting the funds...lots of overhead, payments to other organisations, payment to labels etc...seeme like everyone BUT the musicians benefit...

We've made an arrangement to play "public domain" music in our stores, for the cost of a set of CD's for each, and can now avoid the SOCAN fees. We were, however, not comfortable with avoiding the intent of the legislation, and are in the process of acquiring subscriptions to a local orchestra (we play classical music) in every city in which we have a store. Seems fair - the performers get the direct benefit, and the music industry leeches can pound salt.

Cheers -

Rob

formatting link
> > >

Reply to
Robin Lee

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.