 | | Re: Some sellers just don't even try
|
|
"Very" something, for sure. Very- -clueless -lazy -suspect -amusing! He's either very new, or very crooked. And anyone who buys is either very new, or very stupid. Internet: The Lesson Continues... -gus (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
|
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:41:53 GMT, "Mike Poindexter" <lego@poindexter.cc> wrote: [... many snips...] (...) Wrong. There was ample evidence that this picture was not a "public domain" set picture. That evidence is that there was no statement saying (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
|
(...) Loss of income (or potential income) is basically the crux of the issue. If you can prove that you potentially lost $2500 due to copyright infringement, it's a felony. I suppose if you had an auction for a really expensive item and someone (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
|
lawrence wilkes <lawrence_wilkes@msn.com> wrote in message news:Fs8zDC.8o4@lugnet.com... (...) that (...) No, I am not basically saying that. You have a copyright for that picture posted where they can't see it (i.e. it isn't in the auction listing) (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebay acution - Potential Fraud?
|
|
True, some sellers have been grandfathered in, but how many people who are going to do fraudulent activity have an account that old? I would venture to say that most people who would have done that probably already have. Fraud is a big deal, but (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
