3 ms·

The thing is it's very hard to tell whether imported purportedly second-hand goods are authentic or not. Ebay could be held liable for facilitating counterfeit

The thing is it's very hard to tell whether imported purportedly second-hand goods are authentic or not. Ebay could be held liable for facilitating counterfeit imports and that's what they came up with. Some people report that after providing receipts to the rights owner they got unblocked. Also see Blazer v Ebay, where it appears that Ebay (in 2017) was not really jumping to take down items on a whim.

NoRelToEmber 3y ago
> The thing is it's very hard to tell whether imported purportedly second-hand goods are authentic or not. It's also very hard to tell whether genuine goods contain illegal lead paint. When Nikon and Apple products get pulled from shelves based on an unsubstantiated email from my lawyer, I might show some sympathy to their crying wolf about counterfeits and stomping over consumer rights.
- jojobas 3y ago
  Ever heard of MSDSs? Pretty sure they have to provide assurance for everything they sell, including "everything causes cancer" for California.
  - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
    Oh sure, but are the goods on the shelves the same as what they provided assurance for? Just as someone may have swapped my Nikon lens for a counterfeit before I tried to sell it, someone may have swapped Nikon's or Apple's products on their way to retail, or after they left the factory, for lower-quality ones. If they were found to contain lead or anything harmful, the stores could be liable for facilitating this or that crime - the courts ruled the police do not have a duty to protect, but apparently retailers do, and must act with the presumption of guilt on the most spurious of allegations. Sure this will make commerce impossible, but we had no issue making commerce impossible for individuals, did we? We just treat them as fly-by-night Chinese importers, even when they're based in countries that very much put people in jail for counterfeiting and eagerly cooperate with various IP prosecutions. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
    - jojobas 3y ago
      Hey don't be mad at me, I'm not the one who makes these rules. It appears that currently if mostly affects legitimate sellers and facilitates despicable differential pricing, but in absence of such rules the picture would likely have been different. Also manufacturers face hefty criminal penalties for declaring a safe product and selling lead salts, what kind of penalty can be levied on a Chinese shyster? Also-2, retailers can and are held liable for selling dangerous goods, see Schwartz v. Macrose Lumber.
      - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
        > Hey don't be mad at me, I'm not the one who makes these rules. Which rules? There is no law forcing Nikon to act this way. They do it purely for profit. Suggestions that they'd be somehow liable if they don't police their consumers are beyond tenuous.
        jojobas 3y ago
        There is no law preventing Nikon from doing that, and going after profits is a duty of Nikon's management to the shareholders.
        NoRelToEmber 3y ago
        To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.” - https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... Granted Nikon is a Japanese company, but preserving a company's good name and consumer good will can also be seen as a duty to shareholders. In other words, they are not legally compelled or even legally incentivized to act this way. They are only, as you say, allowed to act this way, which is not any kind of excuse.
josephcsible 3y ago
> The thing is it's very hard to tell whether imported purportedly second-hand goods are authentic or not. Ebay could be held liable for facilitating counterfeit imports and that's what they came up with. Why doesn't the principle of being presumed innocent until proven guilty apply here?
- jojobas 3y ago
  Because one can register more Chinese seller companies per year than any entity capable of "proving guilty" can process. Also because it's a criminal law principle and doesn't readily apply in civil litigation.
AmericanChopper 3y ago
Lucky we don’t live in a country where you have to prove something is legal before you do it then…
- jojobas 3y ago
  Mostly because if you are caught selling something illegal you're in for some serious trouble, unlike overseas sellers in selective jurisdictions.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    I think it has something more to do with the presumption of innocence
    - jojobas 3y ago
      Presumption of innocence only works as long as there's enough deterrence in case you're proven guilty and enough resources to pursue credible suspicions.
      - AmericanChopper 3y ago
        Works to do what? The only purpose of the presumption of innocence is to protect an essential freedom of every democratic society. The only thing it’s ever supposed to do it protect you from the government, and it works to that effect very well, under all circumstances.
        jojobas 3y ago
        Works to maintain a society with minimal breaches to anyone's rights. Without the government's ability to pursue suspected criminals and prove them guilty you get to El Salvador kind of situation pretty quickly and your freedoms become lesser of your worries.
        3y ago

NoRelToEmber 3y ago

> The thing is it's very hard to tell whether imported purportedly second-hand goods are authentic or not. It's also very hard to tell whether genuine goods contain illegal lead paint. When Nikon and Apple products get pulled from shelves based on an unsubstantiated email from my lawyer, I might show some sympathy to their crying wolf about counterfeits and stomping over consumer rights.

jojobas 3y ago
Ever heard of MSDSs? Pretty sure they have to provide assurance for everything they sell, including "everything causes cancer" for California.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago
  Oh sure, but are the goods on the shelves the same as what they provided assurance for? Just as someone may have swapped my Nikon lens for a counterfeit before I tried to sell it, someone may have swapped Nikon's or Apple's products on their way to retail, or after they left the factory, for lower-quality ones. If they were found to contain lead or anything harmful, the stores could be liable for facilitating this or that crime - the courts ruled the police do not have a duty to protect, but apparently retailers do, and must act with the presumption of guilt on the most spurious of allegations. Sure this will make commerce impossible, but we had no issue making commerce impossible for individuals, did we? We just treat them as fly-by-night Chinese importers, even when they're based in countries that very much put people in jail for counterfeiting and eagerly cooperate with various IP prosecutions. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Hey don't be mad at me, I'm not the one who makes these rules. It appears that currently if mostly affects legitimate sellers and facilitates despicable differential pricing, but in absence of such rules the picture would likely have been different. Also manufacturers face hefty criminal penalties for declaring a safe product and selling lead salts, what kind of penalty can be levied on a Chinese shyster? Also-2, retailers can and are held liable for selling dangerous goods, see Schwartz v. Macrose Lumber.
    - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
      > Hey don't be mad at me, I'm not the one who makes these rules. Which rules? There is no law forcing Nikon to act this way. They do it purely for profit. Suggestions that they'd be somehow liable if they don't police their consumers are beyond tenuous.
      - jojobas 3y ago
        There is no law preventing Nikon from doing that, and going after profits is a duty of Nikon's management to the shareholders.
        NoRelToEmber 3y ago
        To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.” - https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... Granted Nikon is a Japanese company, but preserving a company's good name and consumer good will can also be seen as a duty to shareholders. In other words, they are not legally compelled or even legally incentivized to act this way. They are only, as you say, allowed to act this way, which is not any kind of excuse.

josephcsible 3y ago

> The thing is it's very hard to tell whether imported purportedly second-hand goods are authentic or not. Ebay could be held liable for facilitating counterfeit imports and that's what they came up with. Why doesn't the principle of being presumed innocent until proven guilty apply here?

jojobas 3y ago
Because one can register more Chinese seller companies per year than any entity capable of "proving guilty" can process. Also because it's a criminal law principle and doesn't readily apply in civil litigation.

AmericanChopper 3y ago

Lucky we don’t live in a country where you have to prove something is legal before you do it then…

jojobas 3y ago
Mostly because if you are caught selling something illegal you're in for some serious trouble, unlike overseas sellers in selective jurisdictions.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  I think it has something more to do with the presumption of innocence
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Presumption of innocence only works as long as there's enough deterrence in case you're proven guilty and enough resources to pursue credible suspicions.
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      Works to do what? The only purpose of the presumption of innocence is to protect an essential freedom of every democratic society. The only thing it’s ever supposed to do it protect you from the government, and it works to that effect very well, under all circumstances.
      - jojobas 3y ago
        Works to maintain a society with minimal breaches to anyone's rights. Without the government's ability to pursue suspected criminals and prove them guilty you get to El Salvador kind of situation pretty quickly and your freedoms become lesser of your worries.
        3y ago