Teenager Pays Hundreds Of Dollars For A Picture Of An Xbox One
from the worth-a-thousand-words? dept
In prep for writing this short piece, I was surprised to learn that apparently eBay sellers sending pictures of items, rather than the items themselves, to buyers was something that existed. It's obviously a shady sense of humor that thinks bilking buyers out of their money this way is funny. I guess there are lots of ways it can happen, between ambiguously worded sell posts and incomplete reading by buyers. I imagine the latter is often fueled by a newly released item that is in high demand.
Such would seem to be the case with an English teenager who found out he'd paid hundreds of dollars for a picture of a new Xbox One, rather than for the console itself.
Peter Clatworthy thought he had bought one of the consoles on the auction site, but actually received a picture of one. The Post highlighted his story today, with Mr Clatworthy having now received a refund with the help of eBay.Well, good on eBay for doing the refund, but this wasn't just a simple matter of a jackass seller sending the picture when he or she had promised the console. The actual seller listing did indeed promise a picture, not a console.
Despite the listing stating it was a photo of an XBox One Day One edition console, Mr Clatworthy said he’d expected to receive the console as it was listed in the video games and consoles category on eBay.I imagine somebody did the listing as a joke and then found out someone had purchased it after obviously not reading the listing carefully. That doesn't absolve the seller from completing the purchase process, obviously, but it does serve as a warning for all of us during this holiday shopping season. Read what you're buying, people.
He instead received the photo in the post on Monday, with it having ‘thank you for your purchase’ written on the back.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: auctions, peter clatworthy, photograph, scams, xbox one
Companies: ebay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And, but, also...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a new scam
No. This is a fairly old scam. If you Google, you should be able to find stories about this one going back several years.
IIRC, some of these have made it to court already. Judges have taken a rather dim view of the scammers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a new scam
The listing wasn't a joke, it was a deliberate scam written to be "plausibly" deniable. It was meant to trick people just as those fake invoice scam letters that have some obscurely worded fine print saying they aren't an invoice are scams.
Don't blame the victim, even if they were naive, blame the scammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a new scam
The seller was honest and upfront about everything. You might also want to consider that people buy and sell pictures of stuff all the time, it's called art.
On top of that, the 'victim' even admitted they noticed it said "picture" in the title and they stupidly assumed it was an original xbox. I wish I was kidding, but no, the 'victim' saw the word "PICTURE" and thought it meant "Real, actual xbox one" and threw over 500 bucks at it without asking further questions.
All around it sounds like this 'victim' needed that lesson. Especially if you consider he has a young child and that level of stupidity can't be tolerated from a parent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a new scam
A very simple telltale is the price, you cannot defend the price of 500$ for a picture of a Xbox One. It's not anything unique or rare enough for that price. That price is there to give credibility to the scam.
Don't be a tool, and stop defending that trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a new scam
eBay is used by honest normal people too, that may from time to time make mistakes and with rigid criminal rules they may end up on the wrong end of the law for minor infractions that could be handled by other means.
eBay just proved that they can and have the power to change things, there are also escrow mechanisms that could be implemented and the use of badges for things like "return guaranteed no questions asked" or any other assurances that sellers can give to increase their reputations.
You think only people who buy stuff are idiots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a new scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a new scam
And people like you should be ashamed of yourselves for making excuses for them and blaming the victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a new scam
AMIRITE? I mean companies are sooo honest.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a new scam
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a new scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a new scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a new scam
Note that Tim's first link is about another story about this same kind of thing going back to a Techdirt post from over 10 years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a new scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The seller pointed out it clearly stated it was a picture of the phone and Judy was angry... but seriously if you don't read the damn post.
I think offering pictures of things is shady, but buyers need to accept the responsibility for not reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously people??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since when does Judge Judy's court handle prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire) or 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail) ?
I know some U.S. Attorneys like to see themselves on TV, but —geez!— Judge Judy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Judy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I guess “Title 18” doesn't ring a bell for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now a separate civil case may be entered into by the defrauded party to recover damages but the state may also and should try the bastards for fraud as well. One would hope they used the US mail as well so they can be tried for mail fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you state everything correctly and make no effort to hide anything how is that fraud?
Is there some form of higher education needed to understand "I am selling a photo of the product for x dollars"?
Besides there are true forms of fraud that occur and nobody says nothing, like "subsidized phones" that are often market as "free" or "free courses" where you have to buy the "educational material" to be able to get the "free" part of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to the article, “Mr Clatworthy said he’d expected to receive the console as it was listed in the video games and consoles category on eBay.” The seller chooses the category under which the item is listed.
From eBay Help: Creating effective listings: Selecting a category:
When the seller intentionally selects a deceptive eBay category for his listing, knowing that the buyer will rely on that eBay category and be deceived by it, then I think the seller intentionally has made a material misrepresentation regarding the goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've just had a quick look and I can see controllers, hard drives and vouchers for money off a console. So can I buy a controller from that category and then complain when I don't get a full console system? No. Because that would be dumb.
Same goes for many other categories - In the Vehicles-Boats section, I can see engines for sale.
The category is not a complete description of what you're selling - the post title and commentary does that. And indeed in this case it did, through the use of the word "photo".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no reasonable doubt that this seller (1) intentionally set out on a course calculated to deceive the buyer, and (2) did in fact deceive the buyer, thus (3a) causing damage to the buyer, and (3b) and gaining something of value.
In furtherance of this seller's scheme to mislead the buyer, the seller wilfully characterized the goods in the “video games and consoles category”. The seller knew that the item listed was not a video game or console. It was an intentional falsehood, calculated to deceive.
There is no reasonable doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Taking money from stupid people is not, as it turns out, illegal. See also: homeopathy, psychic readings, astrology, celebrity gossip magazines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those categories are there to help filter your search, nothing more. They are not binding the product for sale to the description of the category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no reasonable doubt that it wasn't fraud. If the seller "intentionally set out on a course calculated to deceive the buyer" then he wouldn't have told the truth in the listing, which he did. You can stomp your feet and say otherwise all day long, but that doesn't make it so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you respond to all the other items in the video games and consoles category that aren't games or consoles - eg hard drives etc. Are they also scamming people?
Same goes for every category on eBay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lack of intent to deceive for most of those goods. The intent to deceive is the critical element here.
Do you need a pattern instruction on circumstantial evidence? The jury may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Intent is generally inferred from circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not fraud! That's marketing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, it's only marketing when a company does it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn't. There's an obvious intent to defraud there. It's fraud, plain and simple, of the same type as the examples you list as "true forms" of fraud. I don't believe that a scam artist has to overtly lie to commit fraud, and your examples of true fraud also don't involve actually saying anything untrue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You give out all the right information and idiots still are capable of getting duped? why are you defending idiots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's funny
I also pointed out that the first time I heard about this was a day or two after the XBox 360 release where someone did the same exact thing. In fact, I think I read about it on Techdirt. I may be mistaken, that was a while ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was promised some "writing" here, but it's only re-writing.
Techdirt. Dumpster-diving to recycle "news".
13:16:44[o-257-8]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I was promised some "writing" here, but it's only re-writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I was promised some "writing" here, but it's only re-writing.
1) A few extra bits of hard drive usage.
2) A reason that the report button exists.
3) The primary reason I don't think too highly of the human race as a whole.
4) The best argument against copyright extremists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:# 3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:# 3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I recall this at least as far back as PS2...
They are 'scams' but there is really a lot to be said for the fact that the people buying are not the least bit attentive to what they're buying.
I think it's wrong, and yes, the seller should not get away with it, but it's still an important commentary on actually READING and not just assuming.
The ads I saw were not taking any chances, they had lots of SHOUTING and repeatedly explained you were buying an empty box. Maybe that stopped working and they've had to get sneakier and farther away from the truth, dunno.
JD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those snowflakes are faillin' on my web, they keep faillin'
We can't protect every fool the way we do with the children.
Live and learn. Accept responsibility for your own choices.
Fucking snowflakes.
*Title borrowed from Butch and Sundance, all rights severed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Those snowflakes are faillin' on my web, they keep faillin'
If this was a joke the money would have been sent back. If this was an accident the description would have _started_ with "This is a photograph" or somethimg similar, like all other photographs and pictures being sold. If this was intentionally misleading then it would read and play out exactly as it did.
Please note that I am not defending the total idiot who actually managed to read the part saying it was only a picture and _still_ sent the money. I am simply stating my own perceptions concerning motives, because I can't believe people would actually defend the right of anyone to prey on other people. Are we truly no better than common animals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Those snowflakes are faillin' on my web, they keep faillin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Those snowflakes are faillin' on my web, they keep faillin'
I am under the impression that arsonists' get their rocks off watching firefighters fight the fire they lit. Maybe the jokester mentioned above got similar remuneration?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheapskates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking Advantage of the Stupid is NOT a Crime, It's the American Way
How do you think Facebook grew to be multi-billion dollar company? It wasn't because the upper slice of the bell curve needed an outlet to share pictures of their supper.
While it may seem like a cruel trick to many, to those who sell online, customers who do no read descriptions is a real problem. Constantly people are buying stuff and then requesting refunds and filing chargebacks because they did not even look at pictures or read descriptions or item details.
"oh, I thought this CD was a DVD, I want to return it."
"You sent me a VHS tape, I don't have a VCR, do you have it in DVD?"
"I paid $300 for a crate for a 1912 Tiffany lamp, but I thought I was getting a $350,000 Tiffany lamp, I'm angry!"
When a seller obviously tried to defraud buyers, that should be a crime. When a seller explicitly details what they are selling and the buyer purchases the item that is pictured and described, then it should be a crime for that buyer to file a chargeback when they state that the item was "not as described" or "defective" or whatever term the credit card companies use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking Advantage of the Stupid is NOT a Crime, It's the American Way
Uniform Commercial Code § 1-304. Obligation of Good Faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking Advantage of the Stupid is NOT a Crime, It's the American Way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking Advantage of the Stupid is NOT a Crime, It's the American Way
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking Advantage of the Stupid is NOT a Crime, It's the American Way
The buyer was supposed to be entering into a legal contract to purchase the picture, also in good faith. Once the transaction was completed, the buyer started huffing and puffing (despite this situation entirely being due to their own negligence) and broke the contract.
Someone did not fulfill the obligation of good faith here, but it is not the seller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking Advantage of the Stupid is NOT a Crime, It's the American Way
Intent to defraud means an intention to deceive another person, and to induce such other person, in reliance upon such deception, to assume, create, transfer, alter, or terminate a right, obligation, or power with reference to property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Taking Advantage of the Stupid is NOT a Crime, It's the American Way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking Advantage of the Stupid is NOT a Crime, It's the American Way
You, sir, win the Internet today.
Almost as good, though, is the new listing for a picture of the guy who bought a picture of an Xbox One. [listing]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taking Advantage of the Stupid is NOT a Crime, It's the American Way
Also known as scamming or committing fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It wasn't a joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes there is reasonable doubt. The description clearly said it was a photo. How can you say it was a scam if the description said it was a photo?
Had the buyer read the complete listing, as anyone who had half a brain cell would, be would not have paid for it if he didnt want a photo.
You are relying on the actions of others who tried to do something similar but did not describe what they were selling in clear terms. That would be fraud. That isnt the case here, it clearly said it was a photo.
This is a case of a buyer making a mistake and buying something other than what they wanted. The excuse they came up with is just that, an excuse.
That it was in the wrong category is another excuse. The category of game console contains everything concerning game consoles including photos, boxes, controllers, handhelds, games, etc... That something for sale could be listed in multiple categories and is only listed in one is not deceptive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We must disagree on the definition of "reasonable", "doubt", or both. Because it couldn't be more obvious that the seller was attempting to defraud people who don't read carefully.
Why are you trying so hard to argue that these scumbags have the moral high ground?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly how was it fraud? What deceptive or fraudulent thing was done to make it so? There has to be a reason to call it fraud.
Why are you so quick to label someone a scumbag? Were you defrauded by someone in the past and now see a scammer behind every tree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I call this a scam because the obvious intent is to get people to pay for what they think is the real article and not a picture. That only idiots or careless readers would fall for it isn't relevant at all.
If this were an honest auction, the seller would have indicated that the auction was for a picture with a BIG WARNING, specifically to keep people from buying a picture when they wanted the actual item.
That the seller didn't do this makes them a scumbag who preys on other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And wouldn't have charged 450 pounds for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, a professional photographer might charge 450 pounds for a photo of an everyday item. Say perhaps if it was going to be used for an advertising photo. But then a professional photographer doesn't just auction off his photos on eBay under the category of “video games and consoles”.
You see, in this case, I have indeed carefully considered whether the “professional photographer” story has even a snowball's chance in hell in front of any reasonable jury. I just don't think that story flies. Maybe someone else wants to try telling a jury that whopper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All magicians are committing fraud. Their intent is to deceive and reduce the funds in your wallet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Makes me wonder how many of these people are eBay scammers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Would you like to see your relatives get in trouble because they failed to know all the special cases of the law?
Then go ahead and make this a criminal issue and see where it will lead to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my opinion that is a gross mischaracterization of what happened here, besides which even if there were a criminal charge brought (there wasn't), and even if he were convicted, he wouldn't necessarily serve jail time. If a relative of mine engaged in fraud I wouldn't mind if he/she got caught and punished.
Then go ahead and make this a criminal issue and see where it will lead to.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating to change any laws. Are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When that is held up as fraud, let me know please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But corporations thrive on people buying things carelessly, so of course they took the buyer's side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The buyer should have some responsibility
1) If the buyer has ANY doubt at all, especially when paying $500 for a box or picture or whatever, why didn't he contact the seller first?
Like the example posted by theangryetailer: is it really fraud if a person list a videotape for sale, the customer orders it, and then complains he wanted a DVD? Why didn't the customer ask if the seller had a DVD before ordering?
So, yes, I think buyers need to take on some responsibility, again, especially when they're paying $500 for something.
2) In my years on the Internet, I've found the PayPal is quick to offer a refund to a customer, especially when that customer calls his credit card company and says the PayPal transaction is fraud. At that point, the credit card company takes the money from PayPal, so PayPal has to take the money from the seller.
There's no discussion about how the seller was selling something correcting, nor is there any appeal: PayPal lost their money, so the seller will lose the money also.
And, yes, this is how buyers can scam sellers.
Some people are claiming that this is a scam because this seller intentionally put the item in the wrong category to confuse people. In my opinion, the seller put the photo in the Video Game section because he was selling to that market. How many people would have seen it in the Photo section?
For example, if you're selling a comic book from the 1940's, do you put it in Comic Books, Collectibles, or Rare Items? (Sorry, I don't know the exact category names.) You choose the category where you think will get the best results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The buyer should have some responsibility
Some people are claiming that this is a scam because this seller intentionally put the item in the wrong category to confuse people. In my opinion, the seller put the photo in the Video Game section because he was selling to that market.
He was selling to the market of photos of a video game console for, coincidentally, the same price as the console itself? Please - nobody wants a photo of an XBox One, and really nobody wants one for $500. He was hoping to rip someone off, and almost succeeded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The buyer should have some responsibility
Not that I like what happened, in fact it disgust me, but the trash there at least followed all the rules to the letter and still was able to find an idiot. How can someone read "Selling Xbox picture for x bucks" and still believe that the person on the other end will send him something else than a picture?
Further there are other ways to deal with these things that doesn't involve making it a criminal matter(i.e. escrow practices, platform reputation, etc)
Sad as it may be to be made a fool, the other option that many here think should apply is worse, then I fear that someone grandmother one day will try to sell anything on eBay and get caught in the law web too, there are idiots everywhere and they are not only buyers but sellers too.
The guy got his money back, the scum got nothing this should be enough, do not try to make it criminal, that shit endures for ages and will be difficult to change back once it is in place, people are only looking at one point and forgetting to look at the whole, the thinking that this should be criminal is wrong, it would bring more bad than good and we have several examples already of good intentions leading to hellish outcomes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The buyer should have some responsibility
Nobody is saying the kid wasn't being stupid.
The guy got his money back, the scum got nothing this should be enough, do not try to make it criminal, that shit endures for ages and will be difficult to change back once it is in place
I also don't see anybody arguing to change any laws to address this, which I think is what you're referring to. The argument I'm seeing is that this was fraudulent based on the laws that exist today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The buyer should have some responsibility
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is everyone being consistent?
P.S. I've known for over 25 years that you cannot just go around threatening people here in Canada. No joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has been going on for years, usually with boxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes stupid is rewarded. Because Christmas.
It's wacky.
As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States
Encrypted with Morbius-Cochrane Perfect Steganographic Codec 1.2.001
Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:04:40 PM
parish lighthouse mushroom toes clown boxing weather spit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you know what happens when you assume things?
Come on people, are we going to prosecute people with fraud for selling their artwork for multiple times the value YOU would pay for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was a reasonable presumption. Most people aren't scam artists.
When a society cannot rely on a basic presumption of good faith and fair dealing in commerce, then that society starts breaking down. People begin to have serious worries about conducting business —they pause— and the economy becomes impoverished. The society becomes poorer.
That's what happens when you assume that every commercial transaction is a rip-off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please list and explain specifically what dishonest thing was done during the sale. Please explain in exact detail how this was a scam when the auction clearly said the sale was for a photo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please see my previous comments here.
I have already identified for you with the requisite particularity the false statement which the seller wilfully made. The seller intentionally stated that the goods were a “video game or console”. The seller made this statement when he listed the item on eBay. The seller knew that this was a false statment. The seller intended that the buyer would be deceived by this falsehood.
Please see my previous comments for my further reasoning.
If you think there's some element of the offense of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) that's not receiving due consideration here, then bring that element up. Try to tell a story that the jury's going to buy. Right now, I personally have no reasonable doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another reason to avoid eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
Well put.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
I wonder if ebay is going to ban everyone who has a listing where it doesn't belong?
Teachers take note, we have an opportunity to hone students ability to pay attention to detail here. You can make a game of students searching out e-bay listings in wrong category and also ones worded with intent to scam users. Whoever gets the most people banned for life from e-bay wins! No fear of trampling others' rights as we need to get the students used to having their rights being trampled anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
A company can do whatever they want with their own platform, including abridging any kind of speech they choose. You have no right to use eBay, you use it at their discretion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
No, I'm saying this: "You have no right to use eBay, you use it at their discretion."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
Quite right, YouTube can take down any video they want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
I think you have hit the key to a great successful company! Just do what you want, regardless of what the people want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
Not sure how you got that from what I said. I never said it would be a good idea for them to take down any old video because they felt like it. I said it would be legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
There's an app for that!
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.enceladus.eaby
Let the game of "yabE dabE do Hammer" begin!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
If the government were arresting someone for, say, legally criticizing a particular government policy, you'd have a point about peoples' rights. If eBay pulls a listing or YouTube removes a video, nobody's rights are being trampled. Free speech doesn't extend to private property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
Surely you have heard the governments arguments that you don't want privacy or you wouldn't post on facebook? Or something similarly silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
"Because it couldn't be more obvious that the seller was attempting to defraud people who don't read carefully."
Like a lot of contracts. Try that argument in court. "Yes, I read that it would be two years service contract, but I assumed it meant lifetime, I mean look at the cost?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
Yeah, fraudulent speech isn't allowed. Do you think it should be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
Yes, I can see how fraudulent that is. Why isn't he being charged with fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
Are you saying this particular case wasn't fraud, or that the government should never interfere with free speech, even if it's fraud? Because the first one I would say is a maybe - could go either way. The second one, I think is pretty obvious - the government has a duty to protect its citizens from fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason to avoid eBay
If he had been promised a console and only received a pic, go after him, but being promised a pic and receiving a pic, I see no fraud.
If you are promised to own something and it turns out you only have a license, is that fraud? If yes, then shouldn't the government being going after them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]