| |
In lugnet.market.theory, Charles Eric McCarthy writes:
> (Please call me "Eric", not "Charles". I gotta get that fixed...)
The sad thing is I instinctively wrote "Eric" first by somehow recalling the
"Eric McC" signature, and then went back and deleted it when I actually
looked at the posting name... Shame on me! :)
> That quote is an exact quote. Here's the web page and a little more context:
> http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/png-list.html
> <quoting>
> Listing Techniques that Circumvent eBay's fee structure
> Users may not use systems or techniques to circumvent eBay fees. Some examples include:
>
> * Offering in a listing the opportunity to purchase the item or other merchandise
> outside of eBay.
> </quoting>
Ah! Ok... that makes it a bit more clear...
> Note that the information auction being debated was offering the opportunity
> to purchase other merchandise outside of eBay. Doing this circumvents
> fees that eBay would have charged if the item itself had been sold through
> eBay. Maybe eBay intends only to forbid listings where the auctioneer him-
> or herself was actually selling the merchandise, and maybe listings offering
> the opportunity to buy other merchandise from a third party are OK.
Upon looking at it in context, I think that's exactly what they mean-- that
selling the 'opportunity' to buy other merchandise from third party sources
is OK. Why? Because otherwise that third party would most likely have
nothing to do with Ebay, and this way, Ebay's making some profit on it.
HOWEVER, if the third party's only source of advertisment and customer base
is through Ebay, then the seller might be avoiding potential listing fees
for higher priced items for which Ebay would charge more.
> However, unless eBay clarifies their position this is all speculation.
You're exactly right. I think if I were a lawyer, I would argue that this is
very open to speculation and should be clarified. However, my take on it
seeing it in context is that yes, the auction was OK.
> It is not the making of money per se that most find reprehensible.
> It is profiting from other people's ignorance rather than providing real
> value that some find reprehensible.
Agree.
> Even as a seller, I can understand
> this. I myself feel uncomfortable when someone who doesn't know the
> market far overbids something that I am selling. If they know the
> market but they bid more because they just want to have it *now*,
> or because they trust me to grade it correctly and to pack it well,
> then I don't feel so uncomfortable. Then there are people who see
> an information gap and exploit it without qualms; Mr. H for example.
Agree. And there's nothing 'wrong' with that exploitation, really. But
personally, I have a problem with it. A legal problem? No. But a moral one.
> To put this in perspective, I think Mr. H should *not* be put in the
> same league as those who sell S@H items with misleading or
> fraudulent descriptions like "RARE" or "HARD TO FIND".
Agree. There are people who write "RARE" and "HARD TO FIND" and "BIG LEGO
LOT! Not Castle,Space,Town or Train", etc. Things that are purposefully
misleading or even in some cases incorrect, and the people KNOW that the
information is incorrect, or even THINK it MIGHT be wrong. But that's not
what this auction was all about. Mark was well aware of what he was selling
and was very open and honest with what the buyer would be getting. But the
item being sold is what is suspect to criticism in this case, I think. Not
the method of sale. A rather important distinction, I think. I don't think
Mark lied or implied anything fraudulent in the auction, and that's
definitely worth something.
His knowing exploitation of free information, however, is another matter.
And as an aside, it didn't really make ME 'sick' until I read Rose's post
and thought about that side of it... If the knowledge of online sales is now
subject to profit, should Lugnet host such information without getting some
sort of kickback? Doesn't that motivate a LACK of or FEE for all
information? And isn't that exactly the opposite point of things like
Lugnet? Should I start charging people to hear about my latest building
techniques or see my latest MOC? I hope not...
DaveE
Continuing FUT to .theory
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: This makes me SICK!
|
| (...) (Please call me "Eric", not "Charles". I gotta get that fixed...) That quote is an exact quote. Here's the web page and a little more context: (URL) Listing Techniques that Circumvent eBay's fee structure Users may not use systems or (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.market.auction)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
