Who says companies respect our copyrights?

[NDGAARONDI]

http://www.weblaw.co.uk/art_ebay.htm

Or read below:

eBAY ESCAPES PIRATE'S LIABILITY


Online auction giant eBay has been trumpeting a recent victory in the courts which means it is not liable for offering pirated videos for sale on its site.

Film-make Robert Hendrickson sued eBay after it refused to stop selling copies of a documentary he made in 1972 about notorious serial-killer Charles Manson. eBay argued that it does not vouch for or give warranties about the items being sold on-line and for this reason was unlike a real-world auctioneer which verifies the source of goods and gives provenances. eBay also argued that copyright infringement actually occurred offline, not on its site.

The judge in this case agreed and said that eBay did not have the requisite ability to control the activity of buying and selling on its site which is required to permit prosecution under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The judge likened sale of the pirate copies from the site to sale of goods from a market stall or flea market. Jay Monahan, of eBay said "The court clearly says a company like eBay is not required to proactively monitor its site looking for infringing content."

In this case, Hendrickson had notified eBay that pirate copies of a film he owned copyright in were being sold from its website. This notification might have led to eBay taking down the items for sale, but asked Hendrickson refused to complete a "rights owners form" on the basis that his rights were obvious. The outcome might have been different if Hendrickson had complied with this request and eBay's notify and take-down procedure had been followed through. In England, the outcome might also have been different, as under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act it is an offence to distribute infringing copies of copyright material and eBay's activities may have been caught by this.

What does this decision actually mean for copyright owners and consumers? For rights owners, it appears giant e-tailers like eBay can avoid liability for selling pirated goods by simply refusing to monitor sales on their sites. Will they use the same arguments for pornographic material or racially offensive material? Presumably they could. By arguing that they do not know what is being sold and bought, such e-tailers avoid the obligation of verifying source, quality and in this case ownership. These e-tailers would surely argue that it is impractical for e-tailers to monitor all goods sold via their sites and the cost of insurance against being sued would have to be passed onto consumers.

From a consumer's perspective, if the e-tailer has no verification obligations, then it cannot be expected to give any warranties or guarantees to the consumer. The consumer will not know when buying whether the goods are of acceptable quality, whether they will work satisfactorily and whether they will be able to get their money back. If the e-tailer is not prepared to give any such guarantees, swap and auction sites will not flourish as price savings don't appear so attractive when the goods don't work and apparently can't be returned (although under English law consumers will probably be able to seek redress under the Sale of Goods Act.

The cynic might ask whether the outcome would have been different if this had been a sale of pirated music and EMI were suing?




SPRECHER GRIER HALBERSTAM LLP
Sprecher Grier Halberstam specialise in e-commerce and intellectual property.

For further information on this or to discuss Ecommerce issues please contact Joanne Brook or Simon Halberstam of Sprecher Grier Halberstam on 020 7544 5555 or email at [email protected]

(c) 2003 Weblaw

Just about says it all doesn't it?

[tons of fun]

Oh my.........will it ever get better??

:devil

[NDGAARONDI]

It's amazing that if a fast food restaurant has a fly in the burger they can be sued. Even if they check every burger, or try to. But eBay wants to avoid this liability on their site. I don't see why there's any difference. If they say the site is too big, then employ more staff, or manage it better, don't use that as an excuse.

Also anyone heard, eBay took action against BidBay, a rival auction site, on the basis of "similarities". I read in an article that some eBay staff don't know what a "bay" is...........well they're stupid.....no idea what's the verdict on this case...........

They also claim that they deal with fraud blah blah blah.........but some of the obvious ones I've seen happen go on and on.

Like there are sellers I have seen who sell copied OSs, namely the Linux ones. At £30 (buy it now) for each of the latest versions of Mandrake, RedHat and SuSE, it's obvious that the seller is infringing copyright and a tortfaesor, but in almost a year eBay (UK) have not banned him..........

To be honest, it's only the nature of civil law suits here in the UK, that eBay have not been to court.

That is, troubles and delays with the civil justice system etc.

May be there should be a standard set, like for Aeroplane companies, that if they fall below a target, then action is taken. So eBay have to crack down on this.........

[Mitsugi]

Originally posted by NDGAARONDI
Like there are sellers I have seen who sell copied OSs, namely the Linux ones. At £30 (buy it now) for each of the latest versions of Mandrake, RedHat and SuSE, it's obvious that the seller is infringing copyright and a tortfaesor, but in almost a year eBay (UK) have not banned him..........

reselling Linux OS is perfectly legal unless there are files that is not licensed in a OSI approved license and does not allow redistribution without a fee.

[Theinfamousone]

I've seen people selling Kazaa Gold there, LOL. I bought a set of an old TV series on VCD from eBay and when I tried to resell them, some whiny moron told on me and it got shut down.

[NDGAARONDI]

Well in his listing he did not state that they were copies, and though puny prices compared to the originals would suggest this, this is not on.

If you don't state the nature of the product like this, then it will no doubt interfere with the Sales of Goods Act. Most people should state that what they sell is second hand etc. but most people do - some don't.

I feel that person hasn't got that licence and hasn't said in his listings and should really.

This ISO license may not cover any form of English law anyway. It's an offence to distribute copyright material full stop. Not for back-up copies like I hear people say when they sell stuff.....not that I care though.

Hey, Theinfamousone, did that person get you shut down? Is that what you meant?

Oh and speaking of them. I'm surprised no one has taken them to court for dematory feedback. All you have to do is email them and tell them, that's all..........

[Theinfamousone]

Yes, they got eBay to shut down my auction.

[vikram_mohan]

I know people autioning Windows XP and 2000 cd's on Ebay for like 50 $ .......... copied of course.................... with the activation crack and Windows update fix built in

[NDGAARONDI]

It's a shame that when that guy tried taking out eBay that defence counsel should have picked up how slack they are on spotting the most obvious infringing auctions. And I''ve never understood why they always use the term fraud on their site.....sometimes I wander if they know the difference between an consumer offence and fraud. Bit of a difference!

Also bet not many didn't know when eBay says a bid is a contract to buy, well it isn't lol.......something I found out which is in something simple in 'A' level law (below degree). Just wandering who the hell made up their legal stuff........Hey if it was legally binding and you tell eBay that a person hasn't fulfilled the auction, then take eBay to court, for in breach of contract lol.....lots of £££.

$50 is a bit expensive for 2000 if they're copies IMO.