A seller stole my auction description including PICTURE URL on my webspace, suggest a good substitution ;)

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I think se7enty7 should pursue this as a lawful binding contract should be pursued. If I'm stupid enough to allow a 3rd party full control over a portion of my contractual offer that I put up for public sale, I should be bound by that contractual offer as long as it is not legally nullified (by being made an illegal contract such as for drugs.) This guy should be used to make an example to others.
[snip]
I am sick of these 'little' things that the huge power sellers get by with every day on Ebay. I bought a DVD set advertised as 'new, sealed' that had the barcode (part of the case) cut off in an ugly manner. The cutoff barcode was not mentioned in any way on the site. I have no recourse against him other than to ruin my reputation (100% positive) by leaving him a negative. Though, I feel it's my duty to the Ebay community to leave him a negative so that others may know he is a rotten seller.

I think it's se7enty7's duty to the Ebay community to be relentless in his effort to force the seller to fulfill the contract. That way, it deters other 'power sellers' from wasting the limited bandwidth that competing 'joe dude' sellers have.

Here you are telling someone they should pursue something when yourself you admit to not doing anything about getting the shaft but cry.

If someone earned a negative, give them one, if you get one back comment on it. Sure you'd like to work out a situation where both are happy, but sometimes you can't....then you have to give the negative.

Also as others are talking publically accessable vs. private....if you put something on the net you want people to see you are going to have to make it public.

Å

 

[fumbduck]

still no response?

 

[MrScott81]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I think se7enty7 should pursue this as a lawful binding contract should be pursued. If I'm stupid enough to allow a 3rd party full control over a portion of my contractual offer that I put up for public sale, I should be bound by that contractual offer as long as it is not legally nullified (by being made an illegal contract such as for drugs.) This guy should be used to make an example to others.

My ISP allows a certain amount of bandwidth for my web site (read pictures that I host). If I go over that bandwidth, I get billed like hell. Someone linking to my picture without my permission, especially a 'Power Seller' (professional) like that one, oughta know that he is bound by the contract. Not forcing this person to fulfill the contractual obligations ruins the culpability of said person. It ruins the only deterrant against stealing one's bandwidth.

I am sick of these 'little' things that the huge power sellers get by with every day on Ebay. I bought a DVD set advertised as 'new, sealed' that had the barcode (part of the case) cut off in an ugly manner. The cutoff barcode was not mentioned in any way on the site. I have no recourse against him other than to ruin my reputation (100% positive) by leaving him a negative. Though, I feel it's my duty to the Ebay community to leave him a negative so that others may know he is a rotten seller.

I think it's se7enty7's duty to the Ebay community to be relentless in his effort to force the seller to fulfill the contract. That way, it deters other 'power sellers' from wasting the limited bandwidth that competing 'joe dude' sellers have.

I suppose if the picture were to have said "Buy this and I'll give you a million dollars", that the seller should be held responsible for that too? Don't ge me wrong,the seller is a dumbass and should pay for this with a negative, but trying to force him to send out 2 projectors is taking it a little too far...negative received, learned his lesson, problem solved.

 

[Tab]

I say screw him for all he's worth. I've also got 60Gb of Illegal Software, Music, Movies and Games. I am a hypocrit! Do I care? No, I really dont. However, I am sure your just as clean too

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: fumbduck
still no response?

still nothing. this guy sucks at replying to email.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Any updates yet?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: scottdog81

I suppose if the picture were to have said "Buy this and I'll give you a million dollars", that the seller should be held responsible for that too? Don't ge me wrong,the seller is a dumbass and should pay for this with a negative, but trying to force him to send out 2 projectors is taking it a little too far...negative received, learned his lesson, problem solved.

Good thing a pacifist like you isn't running this country. I doubt anyone is expecting a pair of projectors showing up, however this guy show figure out how to avoid the negative he should get because of this. I am sure your little bleeding heart has already clued him into the discussion here.

Ebay's TOS states you need to handle your pictures and text, if there is a way those change out of your control then you are still responsible.

However, if you were in charge of this country we'd be getting robbed left and right I am sure.

Å

 

[alkemyst]

To all the people bragging about stolen stuff....RIAA can make requests of user information because of that. I am sure there is at least one RIAA member amongst us.

The thing is you can't say well since you speed, you can't complain about someone else speeding. You may be hypocritical, but a law is a law.

Ebay has a policy about stealing auction text/images for a reason...this situation is one of them.

The idiot still is stealing from amazon....if everyone just took it for granted that amazon was hosting the pics of just about every product you can imagine, their site would come to a grinding halt....the resources they would need to handle that would come out of their pockets for other company's sales.

You can't say it's *only* one guy....then *only* two guys, etc....

You steal a buck it's still stealing.

Å

 

[Ichinisan]

Originally posted by: iliopsoas

Originally posted by: CZroe

It was posted on a publicly accessible Internet server. It was not stated in the context that it was not to be linked to. It was not removed, but simply replaced with another image intended for public access.

I have a nice statue in front of my house. It's publicly accessible. Does that mean that it's there for someone to take?

Now, I also have picture hosted on a web server where I pay for the bandwidth and the storage space. I use the web space to host pictures for my own personal purposes and SPECIFIC transactions. Unfortunately, it's also publicly accessible.

Well, the picture was not "taken" from your server...it is still there and serving it's purpose. If someone took your statue, it would be gone.

 

[spanky]

entertaining.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: iliopsoas

Originally posted by: CZroe

It was posted on a publicly accessible Internet server. It was not stated in the context that it was not to be linked to. It was not removed, but simply replaced with another image intended for public access.

I have a nice statue in front of my house. It's publicly accessible. Does that mean that it's there for someone to take?

Now, I also have picture hosted on a web server where I pay for the bandwidth and the storage space. I use the web space to host pictures for my own personal purposes and SPECIFIC transactions. Unfortunately, it's also publicly accessible.

Well, the picture was not "taken" from your server...it is still there and serving it's purpose. If someone took your statue, it would be gone.

You can't be that stupid (at least I don't think so)...perhaps he used a bad analogy, but if you copied my Windows XP, I would still have my original CD and what does that equate too?

Å

 

[arcain]

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: iliopsoas

Originally posted by: CZroe

It was posted on a publicly accessible Internet server. It was not stated in the context that it was not to be linked to. It was not removed, but simply replaced with another image intended for public access.

I have a nice statue in front of my house. It's publicly accessible. Does that mean that it's there for someone to take?

Now, I also have picture hosted on a web server where I pay for the bandwidth and the storage space. I use the web space to host pictures for my own personal purposes and SPECIFIC transactions. Unfortunately, it's also publicly accessible.

Well, the picture was not "taken" from your server...it is still there and serving it's purpose. If someone took your statue, it would be gone.

However some X amount of bandwidth was taken from his monthly bandwidth usage for his webhost, which could have financial consequences.

 

[Coolone]

best thread evar!

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Regardless of what CZroe or anyone believes, anything whether net-based or printed is the property of the author.

People think since so-and-so reprints or reposts something it's ok....or that since the image doesn't have a user/pass restriction (idiotic) it's free.

Ebay does have a policy about stealing images/text....there is a reason for it, being that the original poster can change things.

Also, se7enty7, I don't know why you are handing the seller ammo to say "Oh yeah, that's what happened, my, er, um, yeah, password got compromised" Let him find his own way out.

Å

Ergh. Once again someone misinterprets bandwidth usage as a copyright violation. LukFilms DID NOT create or own the original image! This issue is truely about the image. I know because I looked up the original auction it was taken from. This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or plagiarism (Although some of the description may have been lifted)! Also, a user/password is merely a way to enforce the restriction. I'm saying that he never implied that there were any restrictions (No statement requesting that the image not be used on his bandwidth). Even if he had a big fat "Copyright (C) 2003 LukFilms" it wouldn't matter because this is an argument about bandwidth,not copyright.

Originally posted by: alkemyst
The idiot still is stealing from amazon....if everyone just took it for granted that amazon was hosting the pics of just about every product you can imagine, their site would come to a grinding halt....the resources they would need to handle that would come out of their pockets for other company's sales.

Yeah freakin' right. Do you have any idea how much more popular these linked images would have to be than Amazon's own website? Hmm... Let's see... A HELL OF A LOT. Also, I am pretty sure that Amazon does explicitly state that you can not use their content outside of the context. Linking to theirs could make you a thief so therefore this analogy does not apply to the auction situation.

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: iliopsoas

Originally posted by: CZroe

It was posted on a publicly accessible Internet server. It was not stated in the context that it was not to be linked to. It was not removed, but simply replaced with another image intended for public access.

I have a nice statue in front of my house. It's publicly accessible. Does that mean that it's there for someone to take?

Now, I also have picture hosted on a web server where I pay for the bandwidth and the storage space. I use the web space to host pictures for my own personal purposes and SPECIFIC transactions. Unfortunately, it's also publicly accessible.

Well, the picture was not "taken" from your server...it is still there and serving it's purpose. If someone took your statue, it would be gone.

A better analogy would be:
You have a fountain providing drinking water to those who pass it. Absolutely free. No restrictions. Nothing saying a passerby can't put a little in a cup and take it home for his/her child.

Yes. It is perfectly legal for someone to take free drinking water home with them for use outside of the originally intended context. Whether you pay to provide the drinking water or not is irrelevant because you provided it for free with no restrictions.

 

[Rufio]

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Regardless of what CZroe or anyone believes, anything whether net-based or printed is the property of the author.

People think since so-and-so reprints or reposts something it's ok....or that since the image doesn't have a user/pass restriction (idiotic) it's free.

Ebay does have a policy about stealing images/text....there is a reason for it, being that the original poster can change things.

Also, se7enty7, I don't know why you are handing the seller ammo to say "Oh yeah, that's what happened, my, er, um, yeah, password got compromised" Let him find his own way out.

Å

Ergh. Once again someone misinterprets bandwidth usage as a copyright violation. LukFilms DID NOT create or own the original image! This issue is truely about the image. I know because I looked up the original auction it was taken from. This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or plagiarism (Although some of the description may have been lifted)! Also, a user/password is merely a way to enforce the restriction. I'm saying that he never implied that there were any restrictions (No statement requesting that the image not be used on his bandwidth). Even if he had a big fat "Copyright (C) 2003 LukFilms" it wouldn't matter because this is an argument about bandwidth,not copyright.

Originally posted by: alkemyst
The idiot still is stealing from amazon....if everyone just took it for granted that amazon was hosting the pics of just about every product you can imagine, their site would come to a grinding halt....the resources they would need to handle that would come out of their pockets for other company's sales.

Yeah freakin' right. Do you have any idea how much more popular these linked images would have to be than Amazon's own website? Hmm... Let's see... A HELL OF A LOT. Also, I am pretty sure that Amazon does explicitly state that you can not use their content outside of the context. Linking to theirs could make you a thief so therefore this analogy does not apply to the auction situation.

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: iliopsoas

Originally posted by: CZroe

It was posted on a publicly accessible Internet server. It was not stated in the context that it was not to be linked to. It was not removed, but simply replaced with another image intended for public access.

I have a nice statue in front of my house. It's publicly accessible. Does that mean that it's there for someone to take?

Now, I also have picture hosted on a web server where I pay for the bandwidth and the storage space. I use the web space to host pictures for my own personal purposes and SPECIFIC transactions. Unfortunately, it's also publicly accessible.

Well, the picture was not "taken" from your server...it is still there and serving it's purpose. If someone took your statue, it would be gone.

A better analogy would be:
You have a fountain providing drinking water to those who pass it. Absolutely free. No restrictions. Nothing saying a passerby can't put a little in a cup and take it home for his/her child.

Yes. It is perfectly legal for someone to take free drinking water home with them for use outside of the originally intended context. Whether you pay to provide the drinking water or not is irrelevant because you provided it for free with no restrictions.

That is a stupid ass analogy.

So many holes it's not even funny.

 

[stnicralisk]

Dude I hope that guy sends you two projectors.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: CZroe



A better analogy would be:
You have a fountain providing drinking water to those who pass it. Absolutely free. No restrictions. Nothing saying a passerby can't put a little in a cup and take it home for his/her child.

Yes. It is perfectly legal for someone to take free drinking water home with them for use outside of the originally intended context. Whether you pay to provide the drinking water or not is irrelevant because you provided it for free with no restrictions.

well that would be good if the bandwith was FREE. he has to PAY for the bandwith that is used.

IF bandwith was free then this wold bea good analogy.

the guy was stealing his bandwith (he has to pay for it. if he goes over a limit he gets charged a LOT). he can NOT use the bandwith that was stolen.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: Rufio

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Regardless of what CZroe or anyone believes, anything whether net-based or printed is the property of the author.

People think since so-and-so reprints or reposts something it's ok....or that since the image doesn't have a user/pass restriction (idiotic) it's free.

Ebay does have a policy about stealing images/text....there is a reason for it, being that the original poster can change things.

Also, se7enty7, I don't know why you are handing the seller ammo to say "Oh yeah, that's what happened, my, er, um, yeah, password got compromised" Let him find his own way out.

Å

Ergh. Once again someone misinterprets bandwidth usage as a copyright violation. LukFilms DID NOT create or own the original image! This issue is truely about the image. I know because I looked up the original auction it was taken from. This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or plagiarism (Although some of the description may have been lifted)! Also, a user/password is merely a way to enforce the restriction. I'm saying that he never implied that there were any restrictions (No statement requesting that the image not be used on his bandwidth). Even if he had a big fat "Copyright (C) 2003 LukFilms" it wouldn't matter because this is an argument about bandwidth,not copyright.

Originally posted by: alkemyst
The idiot still is stealing from amazon....if everyone just took it for granted that amazon was hosting the pics of just about every product you can imagine, their site would come to a grinding halt....the resources they would need to handle that would come out of their pockets for other company's sales.

Yeah freakin' right. Do you have any idea how much more popular these linked images would have to be than Amazon's own website? Hmm... Let's see... A HELL OF A LOT. Also, I am pretty sure that Amazon does explicitly state that you can not use their content outside of the context. Linking to theirs could make you a thief so therefore this analogy does not apply to the auction situation.

Originally posted by: Ichinisan

Originally posted by: iliopsoas

Originally posted by: CZroe

It was posted on a publicly accessible Internet server. It was not stated in the context that it was not to be linked to. It was not removed, but simply replaced with another image intended for public access.

I have a nice statue in front of my house. It's publicly accessible. Does that mean that it's there for someone to take?

Now, I also have picture hosted on a web server where I pay for the bandwidth and the storage space. I use the web space to host pictures for my own personal purposes and SPECIFIC transactions. Unfortunately, it's also publicly accessible.

Well, the picture was not "taken" from your server...it is still there and serving it's purpose. If someone took your statue, it would be gone.

A better analogy would be:
You have a fountain providing drinking water to those who pass it. Absolutely free. No restrictions. Nothing saying a passerby can't put a little in a cup and take it home for his/her child.

Yes. It is perfectly legal for someone to take free drinking water home with them for use outside of the originally intended context. Whether you pay to provide the drinking water or not is irrelevant because you provided it for free with no restrictions.

That is a stupid ass analogy.

So many holes it's not even funny.

No. The other analogy was full of holes. Here, I'll even go further with it since you aren't trying to refute it with specific points...

"A better analogy would be:
You have a fountain providing drinking water to those who pass it as an example to solicit sales of said fountain. Absolutely free. No restrictions. Nothing saying a passerby can't put a little in a cup and take it home for his/her child... Or even his/her own commercial fountain set up for the same purpose!" Now I can see so many parallels it's like an impenetrable wall without having closed a single so-called "hole." He/She didn't steal the fountain (ie, image). They didn't steal the water (ie, bandwidth). They simply used some of the free resources required to demonstrate it to the customer (once agian, bandwidth). It's just like saying "If you need an example, go look at theirs" except that he/she provided their own context (ie fountain = image, store front = auction description) in which to demontrate.

If the fountain had a sign which said "Water is for drinking only and is not to be taken in a container for use off-site" then it would be illegal.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: CZroe

Ergh. Once again someone misinterprets bandwidth usage as a copyright violation. LukFilms DID NOT create or own the original image! This issue is truely about the image. I know because I looked up the original auction it was taken from. This has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or plagiarism (Although some of the description may have been lifted)! Also, a user/password is merely a way to enforce the restriction. I'm saying that he never implied that there were any restrictions (No statement requesting that the image not be used on his bandwidth). Even if he had a big fat "Copyright (C) 2003 LukFilms" it wouldn't matter because this is an argument about bandwidth,not copyright.

No I didn't misinterpret....using someone else's images whether they are copyrighted or not has two issues:

1) the bandwidth....this is a problem, so much a problem that site post DON'T LINK MY PICTURES, RE-HOST!. When I worked at a web hosting company this was one of the largest problems. Esp. people that paid for it when the extra usage bumped them up a level. This was a severe hit for the base level.

2) the ownership of the image....now stock footage is occasionally obvious, however, just because someone else ripped it doesn't mean another can rip it again. Laws are changing quickly on these things and many things are considered automatically copyrighted now. The writer/artist no longer has to be burdened with listing it.

Yeah freakin' right. Do you have any idea how much more popular these linked images would have to be than Amazon's own website? Hmm... Let's see... A HELL OF A LOT. Also, I am pretty sure that Amazon does explicitly state that you can not use their content outside of the context. Linking to theirs could make you a thief so therefore this analogy does not apply to the auction situation.

Does that matter the volume? if one is ok, then two should be, what about 100? how about 100,000 sites linking to that image? no?, who do you tell they need to stop then?

This is why you can't say well one or two people is ok, it's not a big deal.

A better analogy would be:
You have a fountain providing drinking water to those who pass it. Absolutely free. No restrictions. Nothing saying a passerby can't put a little in a cup and take it home for his/her child.

Yes. It is perfectly legal for someone to take free drinking water home with them for use outside of the originally intended context. Whether you pay to provide the drinking water or not is irrelevant because you provided it for free with no restrictions.

There is also the issue of manners/mores/morality vs. legality/illegality.

Å

 

[MikeMike]

bump cuz there is a retard on the forum.

MIKE

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

update?

 

[hamburglar]

what's new?

 

[zixxer]

nothing new. This guy SUCKS at responding to emails.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: se7enty7
nothing new. This guy SUCKS at responding to emails.

i would include that in the negative feedback.

 

[SupaDupaCheez]

I haven't read the entire thread but....

has anybody noticed that he has it up for sale again? He changed the picture

SDC