@luckythewinnerwrote:
@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.
Yup, blanket statements such as this are used in many agreements/contracts these days, it's purpose is to negate protection the law is supposed to allow.
Although large companies benefit from Vero immensely, I do agree with you that ebay probably didn't accepted money to start Vero. We know it was started in response to being sued, by Tiffany I believe, and even though ebay won, it was probably not fun.
And the letter I received was specifically in reference to an ongoing case regarding a recent take down...so, yes, my censorship to sell this particular brand is in fact a direct result of Vero.
