eBay Spring Seller Update Arrives with No Fee Changes

by: Opalie

So once again ebay is messing with the Lego categories. They've all been changed to have an (R) in the category heading. What does that even stand for? No explanations given.

There's a new Lego category called Lego minifigures,which isn't active yet but I notice ALL my GENUINE Lego minifigure blind bag listings have been moved to the generic Building Toys minifigures- . WTH???

This wouldn't have anything to do with the recent banners announcing authorized Lego sellers would it?

So sellers of genuine Lego get their stuff dumped into generic building toys categories while the offshore sellers of fakes and knockoffs continue to flood the actual LEGO categories?

The last time they messed with the Lego categories I fought long and hard to have them allow character as a variation specific in the minifigure category. I don't intend to go through that again.

by: Shanna

They don't need a rate hike, not with USPS giving them 3 rate hikes this year, and a probable additional fees during the 2022 holiday season.

by: Carl

"on-demand payouts"
No mention of that on the UK announcement.
They are usually word for word the same; I wonder if we are not getting that...yet?
That was the one I wanted to see most.

by: Snapped

If the (R) is intended to convey the name Lego ‘registered’, (is it not explained as is typical for eBay?) then eBay may be succumbing to ‘pressure’ by - call them right’s holders.  Or call it money, same thing.

This seems to be on the rise on other venues too.  Elbowing out virtual ‘shelf space’ in the process.  eBay profits while claiming ‘neutral venue’ status.  Any potential ‘loss’ by piecemeal resellers is both overcome by more ‘predictable’ brand inventory sales and mitigated by at least ‘some’ resales in ‘lesser’ categories.

Yes, it purposefully disregards the ‘genuine’ reseller evidence.  Yes, it’s ‘patently’ unfair.  And yes, it seems to fly in the face of “First Sale Doctrine”.

Which might raise a few interesting legal questions.  So we have to look at it..

“ The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner.”

Seems clear.  If you bought it from ‘Lego’ (et.al.), it doesn’t violate rights to resell it AS ‘Lego’.  

What’s unclear is whether third party ownership convey’s that right.  One might think ‘hallmarks’ would be sufficient though.

Meanwhile, just because it’s ‘legal’, does that compel eBay to allow it?  Probably don’t need a Judge to rule on that one.  It’s an ‘at will’ contract.

But…the other part of that question is, does a right holder’s ‘right’ to protect their brand ‘image’ extend to being able to ‘report’ ALLEGED violators which the ‘venue’ then must not only remove, but sanction WITHOUT DUE PROCESS?  There are issues of libel, lost income potential, and restraint of trade that deserve consideration.  

What’s more, does the venue have the right to unilaterally ‘convict’ and sanction pre-emptively?  That’s where a legal judgement can come from to compel a ‘venue’ to better (legally) treat their customers despite the at will nature of the contract.  And reign in some of their unethically collected ‘income’.

Or just call it money, same thing.  As in, it would probably take more of it to ‘answer’ these questions than doing so would pay.  At least as much as the ‘authorized’ counterfeiters contribute to skirt scrutiny anyway.

by: Rexford

With friends like Louis DeJoy why should eBay raise fees?  They make bank every time USPS raises fees, and these days, that's several times per year.

As it relates to the Lego discussion above, it would not surprise me at all if eBay starts gating categories soon.

I deleted a whole lot of Amazon inventory this week due to the gating of brands that were not previously gated.

by: toastedmutt

Ditto what Shanna posted.

eBay gets a minimum of 3 fee hikes per year thanks to USPS.  

Some items listed in certain categories may see a fee increase when they are moved to new categories.

Thanks to eBay for not imposing fee increases across the board.

The "On Demand" payment will still take 1 - 3 days to hit your bank plus any bank processing time.  

So, will eBay be earning interest on money sitting in Spendable Funds?  And for tax purposes, any issue with funds  earned but not spent or paid out by the end of the year?

by: The End

STOCK : Ebay and Etsy are on the floor and they can't get up.

by: GetAGrip

They won't affect me at all.  I don't pay any attention to ebays wants.  If they don't like my business after 23 years and a few hundred thousand feedback then they can shut me down.  Until then its business as usual here.  

by: Opalie

@Snapped

Yes according to a 'blue' on the update thread "We most likely thought those sellers were not listing genuine Lego figures."

Now the question is what criteria are they using to determine that if a seller has the brand as Lego and the correct UPC and MPN?

Is this another category being closed to other than those who can supply wholesale invoices from distributors?

by: CopyOwner

Snapped misquotes the applicable statute, saying, “ The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner.” That is not accurate.

Although commonly referred to as the "first sale doctrine," no sale is required at all in the statute. (The term comes from before the Copyright Act codified the judge-made rule.) Section 109 simply gives the right to distribute (to sell, lend, of give away, for example) to the "owner" (or someone authorized by the owner) of a "lawfully made copy." That's it. And it doesn't give anyone the right to display the work publicly.

The true text of section 109 is this (quoting the key elements):

"the owner of a particular copy ... lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy."

by: Mazdaman

Honestly, we'd be happy if eBay just protected sellers from abusive buyers - like the panel they formed, then disbanded earlier this year was supposed to help.

Thus far in over two decades we haven't seen ANY buyers disciplined for their actions, no matter WHAT they did, and that includes a buyer who 7 years ago threatened to dox us and actually threatened to come to my residence and RAPE MY WIFE.  Calling eBay was like shutting the screen door on a submarine; eBay told us to call the police, and we told eBay we'd do that after we put 17 holes in the guy when he tried to act on his threat.  And nothing at all happened to the buyer, not even suspension, even though that was before Mangled Payments and offshore "support".

eBay has never really cared about sellers since 1995; it's just been made painfully obvious in recent years, starting (IMO) in 2008 with Donahoe.

Ebay needs to clean up a a lot of things, but as long as they can print currency that's not likely to happen.

by: Snapped

CopyOwner - due thanks for the clarification, though I wasn’t attempting to quote statute, rather an interpretation of it’s meaning.  We should get this right of course.  So…

Assuming that a tangible item (trademarked commodity) can be represented as a “copy” - from the mfg. mold for example - and disregarding any ‘requirement’ for a “purchase” having to occur prior - though that’s typically how a ‘copy’ is obtained in this eCom example set -

Does (or, how does) having the (thanks again) ‘clearer’ understanding of the language impact the contention that a ‘resale’ attempt such as occurs on eBay should not be subject to a default delisting by claim of copywriter ownership alone, after - call it, change of possession?  

Or is that all just too broad an interpretation?  

by: catman3

Typical ebay update. We are going to do this and do that and nothing happens. Ebay is the only platform or even business that still to this day does not require immediate payment. It has been years that sellers have been complaining about "deadbeats".

by: pace306

As far as eBay and copyright owners vs sellers goes .....

I've had QUITE a few battles with eBay visa via selling items on their platform including but not limited to threats of lawsuits (both directions), lawyers letters and the %100 evilness known as VERO.

eBay itself is no innocent party - especially after its CEO claimed that they were helping sell items "inspired" by older antique items .....

eBay also plays and played both sides of the fence on this. First they claimed %100 innocence while they turned a blind eye to letting some sellers sell fakes on their platform.

In that first case - where they were sued by Tiffany. eBay tried to use the "Safe Harbour Provision" claiming they knew nothing - but the courts didnt see it that way, at all. (Section 512(c) of the DMCA is the safe harbor provision eBay is most likely
to rely upon to combat claims alleging secondary copyright infringement)

In the end it was as much Trademark issues as Copyright and Tiffanys sued eBay inter alia, for direct and contributory trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, because “of the assistance that [eBay] provides to, and the profits [eBay]
derives from, individuals who sell counterfeit Tiffany goods on eBay.

eBay then created VERO - which has its own set of problems - predatory behaviors. eBay sellers without any intellectual property rights are also critical of the VeRO program, claiming that VeRO members abuse their rights by reporting
eBay listings that do not violate any trademarks or copyrights. VeRO members know that when they submit a NOCI form to eBay, eBay will remove the listing in question without assessing the validity of the claim. Inaddition, rights holders may rely on inexperienced employees to monitor eBay and report infringing items. For example, in Tiffany, the jewelry company had
paralegals, interns, and a temporary employee reviewing eBay and submitting NOCIs, despite limited knowledge of Tiffany jewelry. Given this, VeRO members often report legitimate listings that feature authentic items for sale.

The district court in Tiffany acknowledged that rights holders can make mistakes when submitting a NOCI in good faith, and that “a NOCI [does] not constitute a definitive finding that the listed item was counterfeit.”. While a study on eBay NOCIs has not been performed, Google reported that 37% of “takedown notices” it received from rights holders under the DMCA
“were not valid copyright claims.” In an anonymous survey of VeRO participants, one rights holder “admitted removing listings despite knowing that the items were likely [original] and would only permit the listing to be reinstated if pressed on the point by a seller with knowledge of the law” and another admitted removing listings when “someone is selling the product below market value.” As the Tiffany court noted, rights holders have incentive to over-report items in order to “shut down the legitimate secondary market in authentic goods.

This happens all the time, and eBay of course turns a blind eye.

eBay does this now with its Refurbished Section. It refuses to acknowledge companies like Amazon (who refurb their own goods) as legitimate - therefore blocking sellers it doesnt like aka get money from.

Turning back to VERO - VERO was so powerful at one point that they created the now defunct verowatch.com website that told you how much money you could pay to join up, have eBay give you special access to resources and employees as well as a special search engine within eBay to help ferret out sellers you dont want selling your goods.

After a go 'round with a FAKE NOCI from Skullcandy (where they admitted they never saw the supposed fake item I sold , nor did they care) that the website - mentioned in a lawsuit I was going to initiate, quietly went dark.

eBay realized that its better to charge this protection money (eBay IS the San Jose Mafia) then be sued by large companies seeing eBays billions in the bank - a REAL juicy target.

Neither the Lanham Act, the First Sale Doctrine or the DMCA las prohibit anyone from selling any legitimate owned item - regardless of how the maker feels - unless its software or music or films - which are covered under license and are not "for sale".

Its why you can open a small food store and buy and sell Coke products without permission. You can even (shock) parallel import Coke items from other countries with out permission.

"Funny enough" you are even allowed to advertise them (and everyone does) because its covered under the commerce section of FAIR USE in those laws.

eBay of course ignores it all - as it does to other treaties, agreements and laws - try selling Casio G-Shock items from the USA out of the country. The treaty for parallel goods does NOT cover the USA - but eBay wont defend you if Casio comes a knocking.

eBay is just a corrupt bunch of goons. You can respect the mafia - they have a code of ethics (warped but a code) - eBay has no code - its just wholesale theft.

by: CopyOwner

Snapped: Section 109 applies only to copyrights, so trademark owners may try to get around Section 109 by claiming TM infringement, but there is a similar first sale doctrine for TM. But there is a nice Supreme Court case (Dastar, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13445605668854417212) that basically said that if the Copyright Act gives the owner of a copy of the copyrighted work the right to sell it (or lend it or give it away) without the copyright owner's consent, the copyright owner cannot use TM law to claw back control that the Copyright Act took away.

You are right to say, " If you bought it from ‘Lego’ (et.al.), it doesn’t violate rights to resell it AS ‘Lego’." But I suspect you are also right that eBay may be succumbing to pressure from rights holders. They like to market goods worldwide at the highest price the local market will bear, which often means that they sell in some countries at a price far below what they sell in the U.S., thereby making it right for buying in the cheap market, importing and reselling at a profit by pricing it below the U.S. retail price. They tend to get a bit belligerent when people take advantage of their price discrimination against U.S. consumers by underselling them here with the same goods they sold abroad at a fraction of the price.

by: pace306

Copy

That right - to take advantage of pricing discrepancies was codified as legal in Kirsteng - but you are right that companies lean on eBay to be “the fixer” and try to stop it.

by: The End

INA : We have a Problem....
Ebay lied and said I made an offer on something I did NOT make an offer on.
I would never waste a person's time playing that stupid game.
The first time it happened I thought it was me, but no.....
But now I know Ebay is lying consistently.
Wonder how many people are getting snookered by Ebay, especially senior citizens....