5 ms·

Absolutely. It is sad that people in hn are condoning this act. FTA: Obviously, this is a pretty shady arrangement on all the participants’ parts, and it does w

Absolutely. It is sad that people in hn are condoning this act. FTA: Obviously, this is a pretty shady arrangement on all the participants’ parts, and it does warrant a response of some kind from Google.

thesimon 10y ago
Because reselling your devices should not be allowed?
- arjie 10y ago
  Buying things discounted that are discounted because you say you'll adhere to certain Terms of Service and then violating those Terms of Service will have consequences. It's discounted if you hold up your side of the deal and if you don't, then this is what's going to happen. Scalpers are a cancer.
  - rlpb 10y ago
    > Buying things discounted that are discounted because you say you'll adhere to certain Terms of Service and then violating those Terms of Service will have consequences. That's fine. Terminate contracts with these users then, or sue them for your losses. But throwing away their data is a step too far. It's like finding out that your bank doesn't want to do business with you any more but also that they aren't going to give you your money back. Google could give these users a data dump, at least. A Terms of Service violation is a civil matter. Even the courts don't punish contract violators; they only require damages to paid to make the damaged parties whole. Punishments are reserved for crimes, are supposed to be proportional, and you're entitled to justice judged by your peers. A digital death sentence is the right term for this. In what way is this proportional? How is Google justified in doing so much more for so much less?
    - arjie 10y ago
      Because this isn't punitive in the search of justice or anything like that. It's just: "You made a deal that said I could do this if you did that. You did that. I did this." Of course, I happen to love it because scalpers are a blight upon the nation. But that's just me.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    US law and the first sale doctrine disagree with you. You are fully with your right as a US citizen to resell something that you buy.
    - arjie 10y ago
      Will happily defer to you if you're a lawyer, but no one stopped anyone from transferring a device. An associated service was stopped, and I'm fairly certain that's allowed. If you're not a lawyer, though, your opinion is as good as mine on law - which is to say, it's worth nothing.
      - chinathrow 10y ago
        Yeah according to their ToS it was allowed - but morally and ethically it's disgusting, simply.
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  FFS. If you're going to participate in an organized ring to deprive people of buying a scarce item so that you can flip it to your ring leader for a profit so that the ring leader can then mark it up and sell it for considerably more then you deserve what's coming to you. This isn't just about reselling an individual phone. They knew full well what they were doing was shady.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    No. Reselling is not illegal. It is actually the opposite. You as an individual have a RIGHT to resell physical products that you buy. It is called the first sale doctrine and it is enshrined in US law. It doesn't matter what document or terms of service that google has you sign. You buy it you own it.
    - bitmapbrother 10y ago
      Scalping is illegal and that's exactly what they participated in by funneling the phones to their ring leader.
      - mynameisvlad 10y ago
        > Scalping is illegal Source? From a cursory search, I found absolutely no mention of such a law, and the strictest I found is that, in certain states, it's illegal to resell tickets at the venue site. Not only would it be pretty much impossible to enforce such a law, but it goes against other laws like the first sale doctrine mentioned above.
- revelation 10y ago
  They didn't resell anything, they ordered the phones directly to the scalping scum. So Google sees a bunch of accounts trying to circumvent the individual order limit and bans them all, as is their right. Good riddance.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  It should be allowed in general, but if you promise not to do it, you should expect to be held to that promise.

thesimon 10y ago

Because reselling your devices should not be allowed?

arjie 10y ago
Buying things discounted that are discounted because you say you'll adhere to certain Terms of Service and then violating those Terms of Service will have consequences. It's discounted if you hold up your side of the deal and if you don't, then this is what's going to happen. Scalpers are a cancer.
- rlpb 10y ago
  > Buying things discounted that are discounted because you say you'll adhere to certain Terms of Service and then violating those Terms of Service will have consequences. That's fine. Terminate contracts with these users then, or sue them for your losses. But throwing away their data is a step too far. It's like finding out that your bank doesn't want to do business with you any more but also that they aren't going to give you your money back. Google could give these users a data dump, at least. A Terms of Service violation is a civil matter. Even the courts don't punish contract violators; they only require damages to paid to make the damaged parties whole. Punishments are reserved for crimes, are supposed to be proportional, and you're entitled to justice judged by your peers. A digital death sentence is the right term for this. In what way is this proportional? How is Google justified in doing so much more for so much less?
  - arjie 10y ago
    Because this isn't punitive in the search of justice or anything like that. It's just: "You made a deal that said I could do this if you did that. You did that. I did this." Of course, I happen to love it because scalpers are a blight upon the nation. But that's just me.
- stale2002 10y ago
  US law and the first sale doctrine disagree with you. You are fully with your right as a US citizen to resell something that you buy.
  - arjie 10y ago
    Will happily defer to you if you're a lawyer, but no one stopped anyone from transferring a device. An associated service was stopped, and I'm fairly certain that's allowed. If you're not a lawyer, though, your opinion is as good as mine on law - which is to say, it's worth nothing.
    - chinathrow 10y ago
      Yeah according to their ToS it was allowed - but morally and ethically it's disgusting, simply.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
FFS. If you're going to participate in an organized ring to deprive people of buying a scarce item so that you can flip it to your ring leader for a profit so that the ring leader can then mark it up and sell it for considerably more then you deserve what's coming to you. This isn't just about reselling an individual phone. They knew full well what they were doing was shady.
- stale2002 10y ago
  No. Reselling is not illegal. It is actually the opposite. You as an individual have a RIGHT to resell physical products that you buy. It is called the first sale doctrine and it is enshrined in US law. It doesn't matter what document or terms of service that google has you sign. You buy it you own it.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    Scalping is illegal and that's exactly what they participated in by funneling the phones to their ring leader.
    - mynameisvlad 10y ago
      > Scalping is illegal Source? From a cursory search, I found absolutely no mention of such a law, and the strictest I found is that, in certain states, it's illegal to resell tickets at the venue site. Not only would it be pretty much impossible to enforce such a law, but it goes against other laws like the first sale doctrine mentioned above.
revelation 10y ago
They didn't resell anything, they ordered the phones directly to the scalping scum. So Google sees a bunch of accounts trying to circumvent the individual order limit and bans them all, as is their right. Good riddance.
794CD01 10y ago
It should be allowed in general, but if you promise not to do it, you should expect to be held to that promise.