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.
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"
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
Well if it was public domain music, couldn't you have bought one set and
Kidding, just joking!!!
Some radio stations urge the listener to play them in the workplace. All
day long! In a way the station is licencing the end user to do so.
I share your feelings about the music patrol. Just when I thought I
heard it all.
I like the music in your stores. Better than a radio station.
I bought the pair of new spokeshaves Saturday. Last day of the discount.
Havent used them yet, but they sure look nice!
I'm not sure how Canuckian laws differ, but Down Here there's a
distinction between public and non-public. Playing it in your office is
one thing; playing it where customers or visitors or the general public
can hear it (anywhere that it's seen as an attraction or part of the
atmosphere), invokes royalties.
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.
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
Larry C in Auburn, WA
"Hylourgos" < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
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
I actually just sent the guy a message asking why he's asking more
than the retailer's price. Might be interesting to see a reply.
As for unethical, it's not as long as the individual is a licensed
distributer. I doubt this numnuts is.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.