We're Doomed

[namtrag1]

https://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blog/blog.pl?/pl/2018/2/1519592274.html

I had a Good time till it lasted.

[luckythewinner]

---

@magicjohnsonsvarietywrote:
I know that...I was just adding in some facts that you left out.

{snip}

 The real problem is with the law and the way companies are allowed to lie and outright abuse the law. 

---

Yet most of what you wrote was criticizing eBay, rather than the law or the companies 🙂 

"ebay folds like a wet blanket, no due process, guilty as charged, and the firing squad if you relist it"

[magicjohnsonsvariety]

---

@luckythewinnerwrote:

---

@magicjohnsonsvarietywrote:
I know that...I was just adding in some facts that you left out.

{snip}

 The real problem is with the law and the way companies are allowed to lie and outright abuse the law. 

---

Yet most of what you wrote was criticizing eBay, rather than the law or the companies 🙂 

"ebay folds like a wet blanket, no due process, guilty as charged, and the firing squad if you relist it"

---

Show me what's not true in that sentence. 

In the Vero letter I received from ebay not only did they advise not to relist my genuine item until I get clearance from the copyright owner, but also advised not to sell any other similar items with that brand name.....

.....Ebay sellers may as well just throw the first sale doctrine in the trash can, it is worthless.

Ebay is not an innocent bystander by any means. Ebay is too quick to suspend people who otherwise may be innocent. We read their unfortunate stories here all the time.

[luckythewinner]

---

@magicjohnsonsvarietywrote:

---

@luckythewinnerwrote:

---

@magicjohnsonsvarietywrote:
I know that...I was just adding in some facts that you left out.

{snip}

 The real problem is with the law and the way companies are allowed to lie and outright abuse the law. 

---

Yet most of what you wrote was criticizing eBay, rather than the law or the companies 🙂 

"ebay folds like a wet blanket, no due process, guilty as charged, and the firing squad if you relist it" 

---

Show me what's not true in that sentence. 

In the Vero letter I received from ebay not only did they advise not to relist my genuine item until I get clearance from the copyright owner, but also advised not to sell any other similar items with that brand name.....

.....Ebay sellers may as well just throw the first sale doctrine in the trash can, it is worthless. 

---

Nothing is wrong in that sentence - but that sentence does not tell the whole story. That sentence seems to be blaming eBay for following a law that Congress passed. 

eBay advised you not to relist the item until you got clearance from the copyright owner because that is how Congress wrote the law.  If you feel the company reported it incorrectly, you can follow the law by filing a counter-notice. 

If companies are abusing VERO, that is the company's fault, not eBay's. eBay cannot possibly be an expert in the IP status and licensing agreement status for 1.1 billion items.  And even if eBay was foolish enough to substitute their judgement for the company's, that would negate their safe harbor protection under the DMCA. 

[meoxcross]

Do these idiots realize how many unbranded items are on eBay? It is very easy for chinese to create a "fake brand" to get a free pass while legitimate sellers that have items that are from indie brands are screwed.

[magicjohnsonsvariety]

---

@luckythewinnerwrote:

---

@magicjohnsonsvarietywrote:

---

@luckythewinnerwrote:

---

@magicjohnsonsvarietywrote:
I know that...I was just adding in some facts that you left out.

{snip}

 The real problem is with the law and the way companies are allowed to lie and outright abuse the law. 

---

Yet most of what you wrote was criticizing eBay, rather than the law or the companies 🙂 

"ebay folds like a wet blanket, no due process, guilty as charged, and the firing squad if you relist it" 

---

Show me what's not true in that sentence. 

In the Vero letter I received from ebay not only did they advise not to relist my genuine item until I get clearance from the copyright owner, but also advised not to sell any other similar items with that brand name.....

.....Ebay sellers may as well just throw the first sale doctrine in the trash can, it is worthless. 

---

Nothing is wrong in that sentence - but that sentence does not tell the whole story. That sentence seems to be blaming eBay for following a law that Congress passed. 

eBay advised you not to relist the item until you got clearance from the copyright owner because that is how Congress wrote the law.  If you feel the company reported it incorrectly, you can follow the law by filing a counter-notice. 

If companies are abusing VERO, that is the company's fault, not eBay's. eBay cannot possibly be an expert in the IP status and licensing agreement status for 1.1 billion items.  And even if eBay was foolish enough to substitute their judgement for the company's, that would negate their safe harbor protection under the DMCA. 

---

Ebay may be following the law, but Banning people, or threatening to ban people for selling things they lawfully own is an ebay policy, and has nothing to do with congress.

Maybe if I ask nicely and say "Pretty Please", the big, scary company will grant me permission to sell their products.

Some shady companies like to throw their weight around and pretend there are laws against selling their products. Truth is congress has passed no laws requiring anyone get permission from a copyright owner before you are allowed to sell a companies product....If a law like this did exist ebay surely wouldn't be here. 

As for your counter-notice, you may not be aware that there is NO counter-notice for items removed with a claim of Trademark violation. No appeal, absolutely Nothing...that's why many companies are now choosing this even when it doesn't legally apply. 

[sharand11]

Exactly..Also, small scale sellers would be surely affected by this. 

[luckythewinner]

---

@magicjohnsonsvarietywrote:
Ebay may be following the law, but Banning people, or threatening to ban people for selling things they lawfully own is an ebay policy, and has nothing to do with congress.

---

If you go back and check, all of my responses on this thread were in response to posts about the VERO program. 

If eBay takes an item down in response to a VERO request, that is an eBay policy that has everything to do with the law that Congress passed. 

But you now seem to be trying to shift this discussion to address entirely different eBay policies, like banning sellers.  Without knowing the specifics of a particular seller's ban, I really cannot add anything meaningful to that attempt to redirect the discussion. 

[hioctane62]

I need to remember to change my store subscription to monthly tomorrow, before it renews on Thursday. Don't want to be tied to a yearly contract when all the ugly details of this come out.

We got a lot of info from ecommercebytes, but I'm sure we haven't seen anything yet.

[d-k_treasures]

---

@luckythewinnerwrote:

---

Why do you think that?  As d-k said, are you going to list in the 23,000,000-item category of "used" ?

---

Because I do not believe that will happen.

I've been on this board long enough to know which predictions are likely to happen, and which ones are just posted to get a rise out of people.

---

I didn't predict - hence the laughing emoji - but having been here on ebay for over 20 years, nothing is out of the realm of possibility anymore.

[percgrabbe-0]

Meh ebay was bribed to implement all that stuff by big box zealous of losing sales. These are desperate lean times for companies. EBAY took the money and ran. 

[percgrabbe-0]

How come things like iPhones arent subject to VERO? Most sellers who sell iphones, ipads and macbooks are not APPLE authorized.  How is any EBAY seller even allowed to sell them here?  EBAY tends to be a lot like the NFL when it comes to the rules they are enforced selectively.

[magicjohnsonsvariety]

---

@luckythewinnerwrote:

---

@magicjohnsonsvarietywrote:
Ebay may be following the law, but Banning people, or threatening to ban people for selling things they lawfully own is an ebay policy, and has nothing to do with congress.

If eBay takes an item down in response to a VERO request, that is an eBay policy that has everything to do with the law that Congress passed. 

---

There's no question your above sentence is true, but what's also true is the DMCA directly contradicts both of our first sale rights.

I doubt the intent of Congress was to ever have lawful people get banned from sites or to limit legitimate ecommerce, but this has been the case from the fallout of this law.

I also doubt the intent of congress was to ban american citizens from selling an ENTIRE product brand......both of which are 100% ebay added on rules. My point is, following the law is fine but adding on to it is not......

......and until it happens to you, I'm afraid you will never fully understand the depth of the issue. 

[percgrabbe-0]

Dont you think huge industries like cosmetics and fragrance have billions of dollars at their disposal to bribe congress to create something like VERO so they dont lose sales on line to small time sellers? They were late to the party. This is their idea of making up for lost sales (to steal yours).  VERO might be a law but so is collecting sales tax and ebay sure doesnt do that with every sale nor does it choose to enforce that law. They leave it up to the seller. The same would be true for VERO. EBAY cant get sued for violation of VERO. They dont sell anything. Sellers on ebay do and they are independent. Its all just excuses. 

[lewisburggold]

All we can do is just hang on for the ride.   If were are doomed Oh well.  Something else will come up.   Best regards

[luckythewinner]

---

@magicjohnsonsvarietywrote:

---

 I doubt the intent of Congress was to ever have lawful people get banned from sites or to limit legitimate ecommerce, but this has been the case from the fallout of this law.

I also doubt the intent of congress was to ban american citizens from selling an ENTIRE product brand......both of which are 100% ebay added on rules. My point is, following the law is fine but adding on to it is not......

---

The whole discussion of VERO in this thread arose from someone asserting that big-box stores got together and paid eBay to create the VERO program, which I suggested was absurd.

Now the debate seems to have veered off into suggesting that the DMCA and VERO are responsible for every heavy-handed eBay policy regarding what items they choose to let sellers list here.

I would suggest these problems are a result of this clause in the user agreement ...

"We reserve the right to refuse or terminate all or part of our Services to anyone for any reason at our discretion."

... rather than a result of the DMCA or the VERO process.