eBay vrs42?

[Roger Merchberger]

Rumor has it that vrs may have mentioned these words:
>From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf at siconic.com>
>
> > This is such a terrible analogy and I can't believe you're arguing what
> > you are.
>
>You missed my point.  It was the conspiracy to wait for half-price clearance
>(in a contrived context, where it was important that the total demand and
>supply were known) that was the dubious behavior.

The problem with your analogy is that the demand isn't as great as you let 
on, else they would both purchase said vehicles whatever the price. The end 
result is this: There was 1 car. Two people wanted the car and was willing 
to share that one car. There was therefore, only enough demand for one car, 
which Ford sold in good conscience and received a fair price for, as *they* 
offered the 1/2 off clearance sale.[1]

No foul there.

Now -- if this were software -- where, say, I purchased Jeff Vavasour's 
CoCo 3 Emulator (to keep this on topic -- as I actually did purchase it) 
and my buddy says "I only want to run it on Saturdays, why should I pay 
full price" so I *make him a copy* and he pays me half.

We are now sharing 2 pieces of software, where only one was paid for. *that 
is bad.*

If I'm willing to loan my buddy my laptop (as that's where the legal copy 
of the software is, say) every Saturday, and he runs it on that platform 
and does not make a copy of it for himself, then only 1 copy was sold, 1 
installed, 1 being used. In that context, No foul there.

>While there may be an interpretation of the eBay user agreement that allows
>this behavior, I don't believe that it is eBay's interpretation.

Then eBay should have worded it better. If it's up to that much 
'interpretation' it sounds like eBay is the 'bad guy' --> not being clear 
enough to spell out what they mean. In that context, eBay might just be 
*hoping* enough people interpreted it in the way you do, which is good for 
them; but without specifying exactly what they mean, you can't cry foul due 
to the argument: "It sounds kinda like they might have meant when they said 
that."

And if they did, and enough people didn't like it, then they can stop using 
eBay.

>And I think that eBay has been pretty clear about it, from what I have 
>seen of their history on user complaints.

I didn't agree to eBay's user complaints, I agreed to their User Agreement. 
If eBay was unclear in that document, then they need to amend or edit that 
document, then I need to *agree* to that document. As a user of their 
services, I can either agree to their amended user agreement, or I can stop 
the service. (or I suppose, I could contact my lawyer and open legal action 
to have them remove that section of the document if I felt it was illegal, 
but that would be 1) costly and quite possibly 2) pointless. However, I 
would have to do that before I agreed to it, else I would be bound by the 
new agreement until it was rescinded.)

Until then I did not agree to what's in their user complaints section, and 
cannot be bound by it. And as currently listed in the user agreement, 
collusion to *not pay* is not sufficiently covered, (IMHO, but IANAL) only 
shilling.

Please insert smileys and IMHOs all thru this document as necessary -- I'm 
not trying to start (or fan) a flamewar, just throwing my opinion into the 
hat...

Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger

[1] My 2004 Avalanche listed at just under $42,000. With "incentives" and 
dickering I paid $34,000. The Chevy dealer was happy to get my business as 
they were ready to crank out the '05s, and was clearing 'old' stock. I also 
let my employees drive my truck. Does that make me a bad guy? Did I screw 
Chevy? ;-)

--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
zmerch at 30below.com

What do you do when Life gives you lemons,
and you don't *like* lemonade?????????????