eBay Describes the Scale of Its Counterfeit Goods Problem
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Mar 20, 2009 08:58 PM
from the how-to-sell-a-box-of-rocks dept.
Ian Lamont writes "As the Tiffany vs. eBay lawsuit winds its way through a federal appeals court, eBay has trotted out some numbers that show how many sellers attempt to sell fake goods on the auction site. Millions of auctions were delisted last year, and tens of thousands of accounts were suspended after reports were made to eBay's Verified Rights Owner program, which lets trademark owners notify eBay of fake goods being sold on the site. eBay says 100% of reported listings were removed from the site last year, most within 12 hours, and the company uses sellers' background information to make sure that they don't create new accounts to sell delisted items. Tiffany brought the suit against eBay in 2004, alleging that eBay was turning a blind eye to counterfeit luxury goods and demanding that eBay police its listings for bogus goods. Tiffany lost the case last July and will shortly present its arguments to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. A similar case in France cost eBay $61 million."
A court in France ordered eBay to pay more than 61 mega-dollars to the parent company (LVMH) of Givenchy, Fendi, Marc Jacobs and Louis Vuitton, because a user sold fake goods on the website. eBay has been sued by other 'luxury goods' vendors (such as Tiffany's (US), Rolex (Germany) and L'Oreal (EU)). Problems stem from some companies demanding that their merchandise (even legal merchandise) not be displayed nor sold as it is a violation of their 'property.' Others have complained that eBay is too slow to take down claims. Apparently eBay was hit with two violations: 1) eBay illegally allowed legitimately purchased and owned products made by LVMH to be resold on its website by 3rd parties not under the control of LVMH, and 2) not doing enough to protect LVMH's brands from illegal sales. eBay has said it will appeal. So eBay is to know what products every company allows to be sold before allowing them to on auction?
sm62704 notes a Reuters story reporting that eBay has beat Tiffany in court in a "knockout" decision. If this had gone the other way, not only would eBay be in trouble (especially after the loss of a similar case in France), but so would Net commerce as a whole. Tiffany seems certain to appeal. "All of Tiffany's trademark infringement claims against eBay were rejected — a knockout blow to the four-year-old lawsuit that had been closely watched by Internet companies as well as luxury goods makers seeking to stop the sale of counterfeit products online. Tiffany & Co. had alleged that eBay turned a blind eye to the sale of fake Tiffany silver jewelry on its site. EBay had countered that it was not in a position to determine which goods were knock-offs... and had said the jeweler did not adequately participate in eBay's programs that help brand owners prevent fraud. The judge... said he was 'not unsympathetic' to Tiffany and others who have invested in building their brands only to see them exploited on the Web. But he said the law was clearly on eBay's side."
...but how many of those items were NOT counterfeits, but merely real items that the trademark owner wants to illegitimately prevent from being legitimately resold? Like that GAP promotional CD a while back.
Some counterfeit products stem from overruns. I.e. Lee commissions an order for 500 pairs of jeans from a factory, the factory gets sent 600 logos and makes 600 pairs of jeans. They get paid for the original 500 count jean order and then turn around and sell the real deal (same factory, same material and techniques, same quality, real logo) to the black market. Except the additional 100 pairs are counterfeit (Legally so).
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to prevent a legit buyer of a pair of the original 500 jeans from reselling their product... Lets lawyer up!
The way I see it, if the manufacturers cares about counterfeit goods, they can give them serial numbers. If they don't bother to do that, any counterfeiting is as much their fault as anybody else's. Or, they could quit being cheap bastards and actually pay the manufacturing plant for the overages. Either way.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to prevent a legit buyer of a pair of the original 500 jeans from reselling their product... Lets lawyer up!
I understand your point, and would like to propose a little thought experiment.
Suppose I buy a pair of those jeans from "Company X," without any way of knowing whether the scenario you described has transpired or not (I'll leave it to other posters to argue the finer points of your post). I then turn around and sell the jeans on eBay. Am I then complicit in any wrongdoing, assuming I can prove that I paid good currency for the product in the first place?
It's known as the 3rd shift, and it's not 100 of 500, it's more like 1/3 (absolute minimum if you have something made in China) to 2/3 of all production.
Perfectly legal (there) and perfectly "real" goods. Welcome to China.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday March 20 2009, @10:38PM (#27276807)
Because they know that x of the labels or jeans that the labels are sewn to are going to be imperfect, and it's more cost effective to ship an extra percentage point of raw materials the first time, than have to deal with shipping another small batch if the shop couldn't meet their quota.
The figures aren't going to be as exaggerated as in GP (100 spare per 500), but if a factory makes 10,000 pairs of jeans, it's natural that there will be spare stuff laying around.
Actually, I know that Levis does this, and the 'bad' ones are sold in outlet stores for about half the price of regular jeans. You can go in to those outlet stores and if you can spot the flaw, then you've got great eyes. I usually can't. Anytime someone travels to the US, I ask them to pick me up a pair.
Quite possibly. There's no good solution, and there are vested interests on both sides. eBay makes a cut of every sale, so they want as many as they can, no matter what the legitimacy of the items being sold. Tiffany makes nothing from second hand sales, so they'd love to destroy any market for them. Counterfeiting probably is more damaging to Tiffany than a legitimate resale market, but if they weren't angling to stop all 'unauthorised' sales of their products I doubt they'd be bringing a lawsuit where the only real solution is to ban any Tiffany products from eBay.
eBay can very easily be written off as assholes for a multitude of valid reasons, but for once I think we've got a situation where they can't be blamed. Short of manually approving every single auction there's not much more they can do to keep out the obvious fakes. Now add to that the ones that can't be spotted a mile off by anyone with a bit of experience and it's like asking them to send a team of experts to your house and confirm that the item you just listed is indeed genuine. Good luck with that.
If they emailed the other bidders saying that you were a criminal then you probably have grounds for a libel suit. If they do this to a lot of people, you may be able to share legal costs. In a libel case, they are required to prove that their defamation (that you are a criminal) is true which, assuming you are not, is going to be difficult.
how many of those items were NOT counterfeits, but merely real items that the trademark owner wants to illegitimately prevent from being legitimately resold?
Lots and lots. EBay, as they say, removes 100% of reported listings.
>>>how many of those items were NOT counterfeits, but merely real items that the trademark owner wants to illegitimately prevent from being legitimately resold?
That happened to me one time when I was trying to sell a store-bought DVD of a movie. Ebay told me who complained, and it was some lawfirm in California that is tasked by the Hollywood corporations to take-down ebay sales. I called and asked why they took down my auction, but they refused to say anything except that if I relist it, I'd be taken to court.
I ignored them and relisted the item anyway. The second time it sold, but it was still frustrating because the second auction did not go as high as the first auction. Stupid fucking lawyers. They shouldn't be able to randomly take down legitimate sales.
It's an abuse of the legal system to allow these companies to go after ebay for counterfeit goods. How about going after the people committing the offence?
If anything, Ebay is already too far on the side of "protecting" the various merchants who pretty much hate First Sale. The web abounds with tales of perfectly legitimate stuff being taken down, with approximately the same care shown in DMCA request cases.
Given that, I'd really hate to see what the situation would look like if Ebay's enemies win.
I used to work at an electronics retailer and we'd sell our returns on ebay(those that were functional, we had a lax return policy).
Despite being authorized distributers of the products we put on there, we had our accounts suspended several times by VeRO when one of the many third party watchdog services reported us erroneously. We usually had to track down somebody at the manufacturer and get them to fax "yes they can sell our stuff" to ebay.
And then a few weeks later, it'd happen again. Those watchdog services must get paid by # of items removed.
Actually, they probably aren't paid per item (too easy for them to game the system) but they are just overzealous by default because that is better for them over all. For one, they probably give the companies reports that say "We stopped X number of illegal sales this month!" The bigger the number, the happier the company. Also should someone from the company notice things that are not getting taken down, the company will get mad and say "What the hell are we paying you for?"
Only way that a company is likely to get mad about them being over zealous is if one of their major distributors gets mad for it happening. Problem is, that the major distributors aren't going to rely on eBay. They might use it, but their large volume will be elsewhere. Thus the company isn't likely to get complaints of sufficient level that they'll do anything about it.
I just figured after we were on a name basis with some of them they would've reminded the watchdogs that there are legit distributers.
But you're right, the only time we ever saw a change was when we shipped a pallet(some good as new, some we would have written off) back to the manufacturer with 3 canceled ebay notices attached to the shipping papers.
Didn't have a problem with them again, but, as you say, we weren't big enough to do that to someone like Monster Cable(who is the great Satan anyway).
It's not just Tiffany or designer products. EBay is full of counterfeit stuff for everyday goods as well. 90% of the razor blades on EBay are fakes. If you buy Gillette Fusion refills there, you're likely to get something that looks nearly identical but will tear off half your face when you try to use them. I got ripped off for $70 -- and getting refunds through Paypal / EBay for counterfeit items is a joke when they want you to return the items with tracking to China where they'll just be used again to scam another consumer.
I didn't know they were from China until after I received the item. There's no way to verify where an item is going to come from just by using EBay and Paypal until after you receive it. Furthermore, they were using an account (that was probably hacked) that had high 100% feedback.
A beard, ala Richard Stallman, lends a certain air of distinguished elder geek experience in IT while at the same time conveying an almost mystical knowledge of things like GNUs, Linux, and ancient shell programming incantations. Of course, to properly accessorize and complete the look a pair of old addidas sneakers, well worn bell-bottomed jeans, and suspenders are required equipment.
Site policy has zero tolerance for sellers who list counterfeit items, and will also suspend any seller who lists a counterfeit item more than one time. Sharpe reports that...30,000 sellers [were] suspended.
One of the major reasons that eBay has so many fraudulent listings is that scam artists exploit a flaw in eBay's user database. And I'm not even talking about listening bootlegged or forged items. I'm talking about listing items that don't even exist.
The scam artists find eBay accounts and break into them, specifically accounts that have high feedback numbers (or transactions recorded) but have little activity in the last year. They basically dig through the user database for inactive accounts and then try to hijack them, taking over the account, and then changing the billing information before listing the fake items. Because the hijacked account already has positive feedback with it people are far more likely to trust the account and auction, not being critical enough to suspect they are being scammed for money or being sold knockoff items.
Another scam I've seen is where people purchase tons of electronics, like say they purchase dozens of video game consoles. They take pictures of the consoles to prove that they have them in hand. They then sell them to friends, family, or strangers for cash in person, while keeping the receipts for the original product. They then list the consoles on eBay and sell them to people taking the money from PayPal. But, because they've already sold the item off for cash, they tell the person who sent them money over PayPal that they will get a refund. They then call the cops, say that they have been robbed and someone stole several dozen expensive electronic components from them and then they recover whatever homeowners or rental insurance covers stolen property.
I purchase tons of expensive electronics on eBay. Multi-thousand dollar synthesizers, hardware video editing consoles, and vinyl record components. Some items seem to be half scams and half real and eBay doesn't do a damn thing to stop people from listing fake items. They rely on users to constantly scream at eBay to take the fake listings down. I have to persist often to get eBay to take down the endless fake auctions for Pioneer DJ components that are listed day after day and eBay still can't figure out a filter for this problem.
At the end of the day eBay is still great (minus the shipping charges).
I'm possibly missing something blindingly obvious here, but what's the benefit of the eBay step in the insurance fraud scam? Just to make it look like they have a more legitimate reason for keeping 8 PS3s in their living room before they were 'robbed'?
Let's say that the Nintendo Wii retails for $250. But you were going to sell them on eBay for $450 a piece and because of retail scarcity people bought them. Then you go through the scam I outlined above. When you make a claim with your insurance company, because people have used PayPal to transfer you $450, you can try to claim a loss of $450 instead of the loss of replacing a $250 machine.
A common scam that I've fallen victim to on at least one occasion when buying synthesizers on Ebay is the "It must have broken during transit" scam - the seller knows that an item is nonfunctional but sells it at full price, and before it ships puts a little exterior damage on it to make it look like it was damaged in shipping when really the thing was a basket-case to begin with. The seller and Paypal then instruct you to bug UPS for insurance money, which you will never get because the package itself generally has no signs of damage. I had one synthesizer that was in "fully functional condition" arrive with two broken keys - sure, that MIGHT have happened in transit, but what about the burned traces in the power supply? I always give preference to sellers now who have gone to the effort to make YouTube videos of their gear to show that it is in good operating condition.
>>>The seller and Paypal then instruct you to bug UPS for insurance money
Bzzzz. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The seller might tell you to get insurance, but Paypal always gives the exact-same answer: "Return to seller." You can then provide the delivery confirmation/tracking number to paypal and they will refund all your money. Or you can provide it to your credit card, and they will do the same.
Also, "it got damaged during shipping" is NOT an excuse for a seller. The seller is responsible for ALL dam
They then list the consoles on eBay and sell them to people taking the money from PayPal. But, because they've already sold the item off for cash, they tell the person who sent them money over PayPal that they will get a refund. They then call the cops, say that they have been robbed and someone stole several dozen expensive electronic components from them and then they recover whatever homeowners or rental insurance covers stolen property.
Lately, whenever I've sold something on PayPal that's been more than $50, PayPal has held the money in escrow until either the buyer gives me positive feedback, the shipping company confirms the package was delivered, or 30 days goes by. It's happened to me at least 6 times in the last couple of months. It's not annoying, but it does cause a small delay in getting my money.
As for telling the police about the stolen goods and getting an insurance claim, I'd have to imagine someone can only try that once in
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday March 20 2009, @09:25PM (#27276481)
I see hundreds of MMO (ok, WoW) gold listings every day, and if ebay claims 100% vero compliance that probably accounts for a lion's share of their statistics. Blizzard aggressively has these taken down, I know because when I auctioned my account they had that taken down even though I was including the game with it (first sale doctrine gives me the right to sell my cds, and I am equally free to expose my account information as I please).
I would have filed a counterclaim, except that by the time ebay removed my auction, it had already closed and the deal was done -- but to comply with vero, they deleted the auction anyway and *refunded my fees* accordingly. So, uh, thanks to Blizzard and ebay!
Regardless of my opinion on the matter at hand, after 11 years of buying and selling on eBay, it is impossible not to feel satisfaction when they lose a lot of money.
And regardless of the outcome of this, they're losing money right now, or at least not making it hand over fist.
I was selling some Monavie Active on ebay. Monavie Active is basically a health juice drink that is sold exclusively by Monavie Inc. so it is in Monavie's interest to stop people from selling Monaive active on ebay because they have a monopoly over the product. So they report every listing they find on ebay as Infringing on their copyright and ebay automatically takes it down. Now this wouldn't be so bad if ebay had good support but ebay in my opinion is lacking in that area. You can do the whole live chat thing but the reps on that have no influence over the VERO program. You have to reach them by a hidden form on their site and then you get an email address (rswebhelp@ebay.com) All you'll get from talking to them is that you have to contact the company that filed the infringement (Monavie) to resolve it. Now remember Monavie has a monopoly over their product and so their is no way they'll resolve this with me peacefully. Now I admit that ebay is just trying to play nice with everybody but they should really do more to support the little guy when he starts getting squished by the big Corps.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday March 20 2009, @11:27PM (#27276995)
That's because VeRO staff are not allowed to say anything other than "contact the rights owner" Seriously, that's the policy.
The VeRO members also know that, and can blissfully ignore any eBay member that shows even the slightest bit of anger.
Here's the real escalation path: 1. Do Not write into eBay, you will be told to wait a week the second you do, instead 2. Write to the rights owner first, specify exactly why your item is legitimate. If you did not buy the item directly from the rights owner, you have no case. 3. Once you get a confirmation from the rights owner that your item is legitimate, then write to eBay, and say straight off that you have contacted the rights owner, and include the entire conversation email with the rights owner.
If the rights owner ignores you, or tells you off, you must then either A: Sue the rights owner until they contact eBay B: Bring as much media attention as possible to the company who reported you as possible to embarrass them.
I you contact eBay first, you only have the choice of waiting a week, contacting the rights owner as in above, and then waiting up to a month.
If it's a copyright violation (not trademark), file a DMCA counternotice, immediately. The rights owner then has to sue you in order to keep the items off the site.
If it's a trademark issue, you are f***ed, sue the rights owner for damages.
Either way, as long as the item was removed through the VeRO program, you must not list any item on eBay that may lead to multiple VeRO violations. VeRO members also know this, and can conspire if they wanted to to take down high ranking powersellers by filing all their VeRO removals at the same time. And yes, it happens. Alternative medicine importers love doing this.
Some VeRO members are horribly incompetent at reporting and have very high false positive rates, such members eventually are flagged for doing so, but it will only happen if the rights owner reports that they made a mistake. Few rights owners will admit to making a mistake, so sue them if you bought the item from them. It does not matter if the company forbids resale of their merchandise on the internet (*mway), that does not make the item illegal, and eBay only removes ILLEGAL items via the VeRO program.
I don't know Monavie from a hole in the wall, but are you suggesting that they have the right to restrict the sale of a physical item that was legitimately bought? Assuming the OP buys a physical item with no signed contractual agreement not to resell it, what basis does the manufacturer have to prohibit the sale.
Come on. It it were Sony/BMG trying to prevent him from reselling a brand new, still in the wrapper, Rap-Snoop-Poop-Dog's Greatest Hits album, you'd be all over Sony. According to your views, now we don't even own the physical items we purchase.
Sure, they can assume whatever they want -- but their unfounded assumptions shouldn't interfere with anyone else's ability to buy or sell; nor should it be deemed sufficient grounds to suspend anyone's eBay account.
If they think the product is fake they should have no trouble backing that claim up with evidence. Even then, it's the defrauded buyers that should be pressing claims, not the purported manufacturer.
Why do they have the ability to say that I can't sell their product? I bought it directly from them and it's an authentic product. That's like some company telling me I can't sell my old stuff at my own garage sale.
By monopoly I meant that they are the only seller of their product. Monopoly was the wrong word. They don't have any resellers of their product so the only way to get it is directly from them. Therefore they lose money if someone buys it off of ebay because to order it from them you have to sig
Most buyers can't tell the difference. For the most part, they are getting a bargain because they think it is a Rolex or Louis Vutton, but it isn't really. They aren't paying for the real thing.
In a few cases, they buyer ends up feeling like a sucker because they try to sell their "bargain" to someone that knows the difference. So instead of making 10x their original investment, they learn their watch isn't "real". Well, it tells time, right?
Because of the price difference, the overpriced only-for-the-rich names are going to disappear. So in 10 years when you can't buy a new (real) Rolex anymore for $8,000 but you can buy all the fake ones you want for $80. Who is the loser here? Maybe the rich folks, but I can't see anyone on Slashdot giving a rat's ass about that.
With the Internet you make the distribution of these goods almost untracable, so there is no risk to the seller from the police. The police being used to enforce the only-for-the-rich prices for brand names. So you get a Rolex for $80 and it will last just as long as any other $80 watch - but it says Rolex on it. If your ego requires you to have brand names, this lets you do it without paying vastly inflated prices for useless names. The name doesn't make it any better, after all.
You're ignoring the fact that that $8,000 Rolex is probably made of gold/platinum, with actual diamonds/whatever. You pay the insane prices for the quality of the watch as well as the name. So while the $80 counterfeit watch may look the same, it's only the same watch on a very superficial level. So yes, about $4,000 of the price is for the name alone, there is a very real difference between genuine and counterfeit goods.
A friend of mine had a Rolex that he picked up somewhere dirt cheap - a genuine one. The trouble was that he couldn't wear it because as he said, "People either thought I paid $10k for a watch and therefore must be a wanka or I was wearing a copy and trying to look like I spent $10k on a watch and therefore a wanka"
It is very difficult for a purchaser to effectively file a counterfeit item report with Ebay. Realistically, they must get the assistance of the manufacturer to do so. I got stung when I purchased what was listed as an OEM part that had been out-of-production for a couple of years. The manufacturer was not interested in pursuing the matter. I would have had to pay for a qualified expert witness to examine the item and report on the item. The seller had admitted to me that they were having the items manufactured in China but labeled as being made by a reputable multinational firm in Japan. Even with my status of being a licensed PI and having some "Expertise" in the field of this part, Ebay refused to take substantive action. Paypal reversed the charges but that was it. Pursuing the matter with Customs and USPS is difficult without the assistance of the legitimate manufacturer. But they weren't interested in working a part that has been out-of-production for a couple of years. The Ebay power seller is still in operation. A close examination of his feedback shows that some others have been unhappy with the quality of his items, but "Happy" because he did refund the money when they complained and returned the item. I didn't want to ship contraband back to him as it is illegal to do so. I still hold the item and plan to sue him in civil court.
Look at the rate at which they've been able to get Scientology stuff banned from eBay (such as 100% legit e-meters)... Because if there's a used market, the CoS doesn't make as much money.
Regarding counterfeit fashion gear, the problem is more the fact no one cares. They know it's counterfeit and just care about what people see them wearing.
Like someone is actually going to believe that a person driving some old little hatchback car with a job at Tesco actually bought a real Fendi bag.
My complaint is how hard it is to buy real video games thanks to all the junk from Hong Kong.
Maybe it's improved but if ever I go back to buy a game from ebay I will flat out refuse to buy from anyone that looks like their image came from a google search.
There's no way to tell through the serial #'s?
Personally, I would only use ebay to buy a beginner guitar. For higher end guitars like PRS or Gibson, I'd probably try Musiciansfriend.com. If you're gonna spend the money, why not spring a little more for a brand new guitar?
If that's the case, sounds pretty good to me. I'm going to start doing my shopping on eBay.;)
I don't consider myself much of a capitalist, but I find it interesting that a company can have a product that another company reproduces for less (at the same quality), but can't compete with them. Why is that? I know regulations help level the playing field, but in a cold way, the consumer wins if another company can create the same product for less. I think typically though, products like this are of inferior quality - maybe the product itself, support etc...
Of course, today it often works out like this: Company A pays Xa to market a trademark. Company A needs something to sell to recoup marketing costs, and know their campaign generate an average product purchase rate of Za. Company A buys generic goods from production company B for Ya. Company A sets price of product to (Xa/Za)+Ya.
Well, that often comes along with it, but in principle it's not necessary unless the original design cost is so low that it is close to the design cost of copying.
Sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to prevent a legit buyer of a pair of the original 500 jeans from reselling their product... Lets lawyer up!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The way I see it, if the manufacturers cares about counterfeit goods, they can give them serial numbers. If they don't bother to do that, any counterfeiting is as much their fault as anybody else's. Or, they could quit being cheap bastards and actually pay the manufacturing plant for the overages. Either way.
Re:Sure... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable excuse to prevent a legit buyer of a pair of the original 500 jeans from reselling their product... Lets lawyer up!
I understand your point, and would like to propose a little thought experiment.
Suppose I buy a pair of those jeans from "Company X," without any way of knowing whether the scenario you described has transpired or not (I'll leave it to other posters to argue the finer points of your post). I then turn around and sell the jeans on eBay. Am I then complicit in any wrongdoing, assuming I can prove that I paid good currency for the product in the first place?
Parent
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's known as the 3rd shift, and it's not 100 of 500, it's more like 1/3 (absolute minimum if you have something made in China) to 2/3 of all production.
Perfectly legal (there) and perfectly "real" goods. Welcome to China.
Parent
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Informative)
Because they know that x of the labels or jeans that the labels are sewn to are going to be imperfect, and it's more cost effective to ship an extra percentage point of raw materials the first time, than have to deal with shipping another small batch if the shop couldn't meet their quota.
The figures aren't going to be as exaggerated as in GP (100 spare per 500), but if a factory makes 10,000 pairs of jeans, it's natural that there will be spare stuff laying around.
Parent
Re:Sure... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I know that Levis does this, and the 'bad' ones are sold in outlet stores for about half the price of regular jeans. You can go in to those outlet stores and if you can spot the flaw, then you've got great eyes. I usually can't. Anytime someone travels to the US, I ask them to pick me up a pair.
Parent
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite possibly. There's no good solution, and there are vested interests on both sides. eBay makes a cut of every sale, so they want as many as they can, no matter what the legitimacy of the items being sold. Tiffany makes nothing from second hand sales, so they'd love to destroy any market for them. Counterfeiting probably is more damaging to Tiffany than a legitimate resale market, but if they weren't angling to stop all 'unauthorised' sales of their products I doubt they'd be bringing a lawsuit where the only real solution is to ban any Tiffany products from eBay.
eBay can very easily be written off as assholes for a multitude of valid reasons, but for once I think we've got a situation where they can't be blamed. Short of manually approving every single auction there's not much more they can do to keep out the obvious fakes. Now add to that the ones that can't be spotted a mile off by anyone with a bit of experience and it's like asking them to send a team of experts to your house and confirm that the item you just listed is indeed genuine. Good luck with that.
Parent
Re:Sure... (Score:4, Interesting)
I was selling a used Kaplan book,
This VERO program ... they canceled my auction, emailed all the bidders and told them i was a criminal selling counterfeit stuff?
Ebay said there was nothing they could do? (wtf it is their website???) Kaplan just did not want people selling used books.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
how many of those items were NOT counterfeits, but merely real items that the trademark owner wants to illegitimately prevent from being legitimately resold?
Lots and lots. EBay, as they say, removes 100% of reported listings.
A hall of shame from someone who likes to countersue... or is it just sue.... or... take these companies to court, and win: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/HallOfShame/HallOfShame.shtml [tabberone.com]
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Informative)
>>>how many of those items were NOT counterfeits, but merely real items that the trademark owner wants to illegitimately prevent from being legitimately resold?
That happened to me one time when I was trying to sell a store-bought DVD of a movie. Ebay told me who complained, and it was some lawfirm in California that is tasked by the Hollywood corporations to take-down ebay sales. I called and asked why they took down my auction, but they refused to say anything except that if I relist it, I'd be taken to court.
I ignored them and relisted the item anyway. The second time it sold, but it was still frustrating because the second auction did not go as high as the first auction. Stupid fucking lawyers. They shouldn't be able to randomly take down legitimate sales.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
eBay doesn't actually sell anything.
It's an abuse of the legal system to allow these companies to go after ebay for counterfeit goods. How about going after the people committing the offence?
Re:Sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
True, however laziness shouldn't be a legitimate excuse for doing things the wrong way.
Parent
Unpleasant. (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that, I'd really hate to see what the situation would look like if Ebay's enemies win.
If anything, too responsive to VeRO (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to work at an electronics retailer and we'd sell our returns on ebay(those that were functional, we had a lax return policy).
Despite being authorized distributers of the products we put on there, we had our accounts suspended several times by VeRO when one of the many third party watchdog services reported us erroneously. We usually had to track down somebody at the manufacturer and get them to fax "yes they can sell our stuff" to ebay.
And then a few weeks later, it'd happen again. Those watchdog services must get paid by # of items removed.
Re:If anything, too responsive to VeRO (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they probably aren't paid per item (too easy for them to game the system) but they are just overzealous by default because that is better for them over all. For one, they probably give the companies reports that say "We stopped X number of illegal sales this month!" The bigger the number, the happier the company. Also should someone from the company notice things that are not getting taken down, the company will get mad and say "What the hell are we paying you for?"
Only way that a company is likely to get mad about them being over zealous is if one of their major distributors gets mad for it happening. Problem is, that the major distributors aren't going to rely on eBay. They might use it, but their large volume will be elsewhere. Thus the company isn't likely to get complaints of sufficient level that they'll do anything about it.
Parent
Re:If anything, too responsive to VeRO (Score:4, Interesting)
I just figured after we were on a name basis with some of them they would've reminded the watchdogs that there are legit distributers.
But you're right, the only time we ever saw a change was when we shipped a pallet(some good as new, some we would have written off) back to the manufacturer with 3 canceled ebay notices attached to the shipping papers.
Didn't have a problem with them again, but, as you say, we weren't big enough to do that to someone like Monster Cable(who is the great Satan anyway).
Parent
Everyday goods as well (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Everyday goods as well (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is missing a -1 Dumbass moderating option.
Parent
Re:Everyday goods as well (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a website [wordpress.com] with information on how to spot fake blades on FleaBay.
Re:Everyday goods as well (Score:5, Funny)
If you want to save money, grow a beard.
Parent
Re:Everyday goods as well (Score:5, Funny)
If you want to create a programming language, grow a beard.
Fixed that for you.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Everyday goods as well (Score:4, Funny)
Or get an electric shaver. A little bit more up-front cost, but it should last a decade or two. I mean, really, blades? How quaint.
Parent
Could care less about Tiffany (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad eBay doesn't put as much effort in to shutting down scammers of all kinds, not just those selling fake name brand goods.
At least with a bootleg item you get something... (Score:5, Interesting)
Site policy has zero tolerance for sellers who list counterfeit items, and will also suspend any seller who lists a counterfeit item more than one time. Sharpe reports that...30,000 sellers [were] suspended.
One of the major reasons that eBay has so many fraudulent listings is that scam artists exploit a flaw in eBay's user database. And I'm not even talking about listening bootlegged or forged items. I'm talking about listing items that don't even exist.
The scam artists find eBay accounts and break into them, specifically accounts that have high feedback numbers (or transactions recorded) but have little activity in the last year. They basically dig through the user database for inactive accounts and then try to hijack them, taking over the account, and then changing the billing information before listing the fake items. Because the hijacked account already has positive feedback with it people are far more likely to trust the account and auction, not being critical enough to suspect they are being scammed for money or being sold knockoff items.
Another scam I've seen is where people purchase tons of electronics, like say they purchase dozens of video game consoles. They take pictures of the consoles to prove that they have them in hand. They then sell them to friends, family, or strangers for cash in person, while keeping the receipts for the original product. They then list the consoles on eBay and sell them to people taking the money from PayPal. But, because they've already sold the item off for cash, they tell the person who sent them money over PayPal that they will get a refund. They then call the cops, say that they have been robbed and someone stole several dozen expensive electronic components from them and then they recover whatever homeowners or rental insurance covers stolen property.
I purchase tons of expensive electronics on eBay. Multi-thousand dollar synthesizers, hardware video editing consoles, and vinyl record components. Some items seem to be half scams and half real and eBay doesn't do a damn thing to stop people from listing fake items. They rely on users to constantly scream at eBay to take the fake listings down. I have to persist often to get eBay to take down the endless fake auctions for Pioneer DJ components that are listed day after day and eBay still can't figure out a filter for this problem.
At the end of the day eBay is still great (minus the shipping charges).
Re:At least with a bootleg item you get something. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm possibly missing something blindingly obvious here, but what's the benefit of the eBay step in the insurance fraud scam? Just to make it look like they have a more legitimate reason for keeping 8 PS3s in their living room before they were 'robbed'?
Parent
Re:At least with a bootleg item you get something. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say that the Nintendo Wii retails for $250. But you were going to sell them on eBay for $450 a piece and because of retail scarcity people bought them. Then you go through the scam I outlined above. When you make a claim with your insurance company, because people have used PayPal to transfer you $450, you can try to claim a loss of $450 instead of the loss of replacing a $250 machine.
Parent
Re:At least with a bootleg item you get something. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>The seller and Paypal then instruct you to bug UPS for insurance money
Bzzzz. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The seller might tell you to get insurance, but Paypal always gives the exact-same answer: "Return to seller." You can then provide the delivery confirmation/tracking number to paypal and they will refund all your money. Or you can provide it to your credit card, and they will do the same.
Also, "it got damaged during shipping" is NOT an excuse for a seller. The seller is responsible for ALL dam
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They then list the consoles on eBay and sell them to people taking the money from PayPal. But, because they've already sold the item off for cash, they tell the person who sent them money over PayPal that they will get a refund. They then call the cops, say that they have been robbed and someone stole several dozen expensive electronic components from them and then they recover whatever homeowners or rental insurance covers stolen property.
Lately, whenever I've sold something on PayPal that's been more than $50, PayPal has held the money in escrow until either the buyer gives me positive feedback, the shipping company confirms the package was delivered, or 30 days goes by. It's happened to me at least 6 times in the last couple of months. It's not annoying, but it does cause a small delay in getting my money.
As for telling the police about the stolen goods and getting an insurance claim, I'd have to imagine someone can only try that once in
MMO gold (Score:4, Interesting)
I see hundreds of MMO (ok, WoW) gold listings every day, and if ebay claims 100% vero compliance that probably accounts for a lion's share of their statistics. Blizzard aggressively has these taken down, I know because when I auctioned my account they had that taken down even though I was including the game with it (first sale doctrine gives me the right to sell my cds, and I am equally free to expose my account information as I please).
I would have filed a counterclaim, except that by the time ebay removed my auction, it had already closed and the deal was done -- but to comply with vero, they deleted the auction anyway and *refunded my fees* accordingly. So, uh, thanks to Blizzard and ebay!
F them anyway (Score:5, Funny)
And regardless of the outcome of this, they're losing money right now, or at least not making it hand over fist.
I'm very satisfied. F them!
The VERO Customer Support is terrible!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The VERO Customer Support is terrible!!! (Score:4, Informative)
That's because VeRO staff are not allowed to say anything other than "contact the rights owner" Seriously, that's the policy.
The VeRO members also know that, and can blissfully ignore any eBay member that shows even the slightest bit of anger.
Here's the real escalation path:
1. Do Not write into eBay, you will be told to wait a week the second you do, instead
2. Write to the rights owner first, specify exactly why your item is legitimate. If you did not buy the item directly from the rights owner, you have no case.
3. Once you get a confirmation from the rights owner that your item is legitimate, then write to eBay, and say straight off that you have contacted the rights owner, and include the entire conversation email with the rights owner.
If the rights owner ignores you, or tells you off, you must then either
A: Sue the rights owner until they contact eBay
B: Bring as much media attention as possible to the company who reported you as possible to embarrass them.
I you contact eBay first, you only have the choice of waiting a week, contacting the rights owner as in above, and then waiting up to a month.
If it's a copyright violation (not trademark), file a DMCA counternotice, immediately. The rights owner then has to sue you in order to keep the items off the site.
If it's a trademark issue, you are f***ed, sue the rights owner for damages.
Either way, as long as the item was removed through the VeRO program, you must not list any item on eBay that may lead to multiple VeRO violations. VeRO members also know this, and can conspire if they wanted to to take down high ranking powersellers by filing all their VeRO removals at the same time. And yes, it happens. Alternative medicine importers love doing this.
Some VeRO members are horribly incompetent at reporting and have very high false positive rates, such members eventually are flagged for doing so, but it will only happen if the rights owner reports that they made a mistake. Few rights owners will admit to making a mistake, so sue them if you bought the item from them. It does not matter if the company forbids resale of their merchandise on the internet (*mway), that does not make the item illegal, and eBay only removes ILLEGAL items via the VeRO program.
Parent
Re:The VERO Customer Support is terrible!!! (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know Monavie from a hole in the wall, but are you suggesting that they have the right to restrict the sale of a physical item that was legitimately bought? Assuming the OP buys a physical item with no signed contractual agreement not to resell it, what basis does the manufacturer have to prohibit the sale.
Come on. It it were Sony/BMG trying to prevent him from reselling a brand new, still in the wrapper, Rap-Snoop-Poop-Dog's Greatest Hits album, you'd be all over Sony. According to your views, now we don't even own the physical items we purchase.
Please let me off this bus!
Parent
Re:The VERO Customer Support is terrible!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, they can assume whatever they want -- but their unfounded assumptions shouldn't interfere with anyone else's ability to buy or sell; nor should it be deemed sufficient grounds to suspend anyone's eBay account.
If they think the product is fake they should have no trouble backing that claim up with evidence. Even then, it's the defrauded buyers that should be pressing claims, not the purported manufacturer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most buyers can't tell the difference. For the most part, they are getting a bargain because they think it is a Rolex or Louis Vutton, but it isn't really. They aren't paying for the real thing.
In a few cases, they buyer ends up feeling like a sucker because they try to sell their "bargain" to someone that knows the difference. So instead of making 10x their original investment, they learn their watch isn't "real". Well, it tells time, right?
Because of the price difference, the overpriced only-for-the-rich names are going to disappear. So in 10 years when you can't buy a new (real) Rolex anymore for $8,000 but you can buy all the fake ones you want for $80. Who is the loser here? Maybe the rich folks, but I can't see anyone on Slashdot giving a rat's ass about that.
With the Internet you make the distribution of these goods almost untracable, so there is no risk to the seller from the police. The police being used to enforce the only-for-the-rich prices for brand names. So you get a Rolex for $80 and it will last just as long as any other $80 watch - but it says Rolex on it. If your ego requires you to have brand names, this lets you do it without paying vastly inflated prices for useless names. The name doesn't make it any better, after all.
Re:What is the difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What is the difference? (Score:4, Funny)
You gotta laugh.
Parent
Re:What is the difference? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
The problem is actually much worse... (Score:5, Interesting)
If anything, too active... (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at the rate at which they've been able to get Scientology stuff banned from eBay (such as 100% legit e-meters)... Because if there's a used market, the CoS doesn't make as much money.
Poor people don't care about buying the real thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Like someone is actually going to believe that a person driving some old little hatchback car with a job at Tesco actually bought a real Fendi bag.
My complaint is how hard it is to buy real video games thanks to all the junk from Hong Kong.
Maybe it's improved but if ever I go back to buy a game from ebay I will flat out refuse to buy from anyone that looks like their image came from a google search.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:HAH!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
there is no way to know if its real or not.
If that's the case, sounds pretty good to me. I'm going to start doing my shopping on eBay. ;)
I don't consider myself much of a capitalist, but I find it interesting that a company can have a product that another company reproduces for less (at the same quality), but can't compete with them. Why is that? I know regulations help level the playing field, but in a cold way, the consumer wins if another company can create the same product for less. I think typically though, products like this are of inferior quality - maybe the product itself, support etc...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, today it often works out like this: Company A pays Xa to market a trademark. Company A needs something to sell to recoup marketing costs, and know their campaign generate an average product purchase rate of Za. Company A buys generic goods from production company B for Ya. Company A sets price of product to (Xa/Za)+Ya.
Well, that often comes along with it, but in principle it's not necessary unless the original design cost is so low that it is close to the design cost of copying.
Amortized of the s