Subject:
|
Re: States Go After Online Auctions; $1000 fines
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.auction
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:27:53 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
rsanders@gate.*nospam*net
|
Viewed:
|
432 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote:
>
> The difference is that eBay (unlike a caller) isn't doing any
> flogging/promotion for the item. That's my main point. eBay provides an
> interface, but that's it. My other point (only implied, mostly) is that eBay
> will (IMHO) promote the idea that they don't auction, because it removes them
> from the responsibility loop, and they're big fans of not being responsible.
Which is fine until someone somes along and tries to sell something not
within the TOS. Then eBay 'censors' the seller & auction by removing it.
eBay is trying to walk a fine-line between having no responsibility (a
common-carrier auction site if you will) and a benevolent 'partner'
(more like AOL than a common-carrier). eBay is trying to have it both
ways. eBay is an electronic mechanism that connects bidders & sellers
and manages the flow of the auction. eBay is also human beings making
concious decisions and 'when an auction should be shut down'. Who was it
that got their auctions killed by trying to make a point about the
scalping of the McDonald's sets, Was that Lar ?
Ray
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: States Go After Online Auctions; $1000 fines
|
| (...) The difference is that eBay (unlike a caller) isn't doing any flogging/promotion for the item. That's my main point. eBay provides an interface, but that's it. My other point (only implied, mostly) is that eBay will (IMHO) promote the idea (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
