Comments on: eBay’s VeRO: Safe Harbor at What Expense? http://ipinthedigitalage.com/ebays-vero-safe-harbor-at-what-expense/ CPSC 182 at Yale College Mon, 18 May 2009 01:26:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Brian L http://ipinthedigitalage.com/ebays-vero-safe-harbor-at-what-expense/comment-page-1/#comment-739 Brian L Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:29:17 +0000 http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=164#comment-739 I think you raise several good points, David. The main issue with the current peer-evaluation and quality control mechanism is that it is very easy to build up good feedback on eBay without actually being a good buyer or seller. There is a common practice of selling or buying very cheap items(that may not even be delivered)--such as ebooks, inexpensive memorabilia, coupons...--to quickly raise one's feedback level. Though eBay has recently changed some of its policies in attempt to crackdown on this phenomenon--for instance, relegating electronically delivered items to a classifieds marketplace in which feedback cannot be given--this problem still persists. Similarly, people can create multiple accounts (or have their friends or family members use their accounts) and use one account to "purchase" an item listed on another account just so they can leave feedback. Furthermore--and this relates to some of your other points--i think some consumers know full well they are purchasing a counterfeit product and intentionally want the fake product. If someone can get a genuine-looking knockoff Prada purse for a fraction of the price of a real one or a counterfeit, but functioning, copy of Photoshop for $30 instead of $300, they may still be very satisfied with their purchase. I think the registry of product and serial numbers is a good idea in theory, but am not sure how it would work in practice. How would eBay assemble this registry? Would all companies be willing to contribute to this registry, especially if they seek to suppress secondary markets (perhaps some people avoid eBay because authenticity concerns and buy new products, if there was a greater chance of products being genuine, perhaps they would flock to eBay)? Also, many products on eBay are sold in sealed boxes--how could sellers be expected to break the seals in order to find the serial number? I think you raise several good points, David. The main issue with the current peer-evaluation and quality control mechanism is that it is very easy to build up good feedback on eBay without actually being a good buyer or seller. There is a common practice of selling or buying very cheap items(that may not even be delivered)–such as ebooks, inexpensive memorabilia, coupons…–to quickly raise one’s feedback level. Though eBay has recently changed some of its policies in attempt to crackdown on this phenomenon–for instance, relegating electronically delivered items to a classifieds marketplace in which feedback cannot be given–this problem still persists. Similarly, people can create multiple accounts (or have their friends or family members use their accounts) and use one account to “purchase” an item listed on another account just so they can leave feedback. Furthermore–and this relates to some of your other points–i think some consumers know full well they are purchasing a counterfeit product and intentionally want the fake product. If someone can get a genuine-looking knockoff Prada purse for a fraction of the price of a real one or a counterfeit, but functioning, copy of Photoshop for $30 instead of $300, they may still be very satisfied with their purchase.

I think the registry of product and serial numbers is a good idea in theory, but am not sure how it would work in practice. How would eBay assemble this registry? Would all companies be willing to contribute to this registry, especially if they seek to suppress secondary markets (perhaps some people avoid eBay because authenticity concerns and buy new products, if there was a greater chance of products being genuine, perhaps they would flock to eBay)? Also, many products on eBay are sold in sealed boxes–how could sellers be expected to break the seals in order to find the serial number?

]]> By: David L http://ipinthedigitalage.com/ebays-vero-safe-harbor-at-what-expense/comment-page-1/#comment-736 David L Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:27:14 +0000 http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=164#comment-736 Brian, I think the obvious but important distinction between eBay and the other ISP's under DMCA is that eBay has more of an interest in the authenticity of the items exchanged on its site than the other ISP's. As a result, they have no interest in protecting copyright infringers or granting fraudulent users a lenient counter-notice procedure. Whereas Google and P2P services may actually increase traffic and revenue by allowing infringing content to remain, when an eBay consumer discovers a counterfeit item, (returning...) he or she cuts directly into a large eBay revenue stream--sales fees and profit-sharing arrangements with vendors. Thus, pressure from copyright holders might not even be the primary impetus for eBay's take-down policy. Their business model depends on a marketplace for high-quality goods that consumers want, and at this point consumers want the authentics. On that same token, it's so much harder for eBay to prove that they're not directly profiting from the activity of users, as Google might argue, because eBay's revenue does not come solely from advertisements, but profit-sharing on the actual items exchanged within their platform. Consequently, they would have little hope of hiding under the "automatic revenue generating" argument made in our Viacom debate. Product numbers and serial numbers might be an effective policy for deterring counterfeits. But I'm concerned that it would cost both eBay and eBay sellers far too much. Why has the mechanism of peer-evaluation and quality control (eBay points/reputations) failed in this case? Brian, I think the obvious but important distinction between eBay and the other ISP’s under DMCA is that eBay has more of an interest in the authenticity of the items exchanged on its site than the other ISP’s. As a result, they have no interest in protecting copyright infringers or granting fraudulent users a lenient counter-notice procedure. Whereas Google and P2P services may actually increase traffic and revenue by allowing infringing content to remain, when an eBay consumer discovers a counterfeit item, (returning…) he or she cuts directly into a large eBay revenue stream–sales fees and profit-sharing arrangements with vendors. Thus, pressure from copyright holders might not even be the primary impetus for eBay’s take-down policy. Their business model depends on a marketplace for high-quality goods that consumers want, and at this point consumers want the authentics.

On that same token, it’s so much harder for eBay to prove that they’re not directly profiting from the activity of users, as Google might argue, because eBay’s revenue does not come solely from advertisements, but profit-sharing on the actual items exchanged within their platform. Consequently, they would have little hope of hiding under the “automatic revenue generating” argument made in our Viacom debate.

Product numbers and serial numbers might be an effective policy for deterring counterfeits. But I’m concerned that it would cost both eBay and eBay sellers far too much. Why has the mechanism of peer-evaluation and quality control (eBay points/reputations) failed in this case?

]]> By: Carolyn N http://ipinthedigitalage.com/ebays-vero-safe-harbor-at-what-expense/comment-page-1/#comment-710 Carolyn N Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:15:00 +0000 http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=164#comment-710 A possibility would to have eBay share such information based on serial numbers or something akin to a product code for both electronic and non-electronic items with the companies. Registration would become vital to ensure authenticity. If it ain't registered, it ain't authentic- whether used or new. A possibility would to have eBay share such information based on serial numbers or something akin to a product code for both electronic and non-electronic items with the companies. Registration would become vital to ensure authenticity. If it ain’t registered, it ain’t authentic- whether used or new.

]]> By: Evin M http://ipinthedigitalage.com/ebays-vero-safe-harbor-at-what-expense/comment-page-1/#comment-708 Evin M Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:50:21 +0000 http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=164#comment-708 If you required eBay to provide a unique product number for electronic items, then how would it be verified? Would it be possible to cross-reference that information with the original companies that manufactured the products? I doubt that enough verifying information is available to ensure the quality of the products being sold by private individuals. Some companies, like Macrovision, seem to keep a tight enough hold on infringing products that they monitor their eBay distribution (or at least did in the past...they requested that a DVD player that unencrypted regional and copy-protection coding be removed from sale in 2000). Given that capacity, should the companies be taking the lead with monitoring what gets sold? And where does this regulation stop? If eBay monitors electronic items for authenticity, would they do the same for other potentially counterfeit items? Brand-name handbags and clothing? If you required eBay to provide a unique product number for electronic items, then how would it be verified? Would it be possible to cross-reference that information with the original companies that manufactured the products? I doubt that enough verifying information is available to ensure the quality of the products being sold by private individuals. Some companies, like Macrovision, seem to keep a tight enough hold on infringing products that they monitor their eBay distribution (or at least did in the past…they requested that a DVD player that unencrypted regional and copy-protection coding be removed from sale in 2000). Given that capacity, should the companies be taking the lead with monitoring what gets sold? And where does this regulation stop? If eBay monitors electronic items for authenticity, would they do the same for other potentially counterfeit items? Brand-name handbags and clothing?

]]> By: Carolyn N http://ipinthedigitalage.com/ebays-vero-safe-harbor-at-what-expense/comment-page-1/#comment-705 Carolyn N Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:26:19 +0000 http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=164#comment-705 I'm not surprised that eBay's VeRO seems so ineffective, but not entirely because of its processes. Rather, it has a lot to do with the nature of the infringing work. Unlike Youtube, where it is possible to verify if that particular song really is by Prince or not, that's not so much for eBay. All there is to go on is a picture that allegedly is of the product being auctioned. There is no guarantee that the product shown is the product sold. While there have been cases where the auctioner makes it clear that the item is a forgery like the above mentioned taped CD case, I think these are the exceptions. It is more likely that the auctioner would try as hard as possible to make the product seem like a legitimate, non-infringing copy, even if it means posting a stock photo of the product. It's all about the financial incentive since a "legitimate" copy is worth more. So, how would a legitimately concerned copyright holders determine if the item is really infringing? What about requiring that all auctioners provide an item's unique product number on most electronic items that would also be logged onto eBay's internal database? I’m not surprised that eBay’s VeRO seems so ineffective, but not entirely because of its processes. Rather, it has a lot to do with the nature of the infringing work. Unlike Youtube, where it is possible to verify if that particular song really is by Prince or not, that’s not so much for eBay. All there is to go on is a picture that allegedly is of the product being auctioned. There is no guarantee that the product shown is the product sold. While there have been cases where the auctioner makes it clear that the item is a forgery like the above mentioned taped CD case, I think these are the exceptions. It is more likely that the auctioner would try as hard as possible to make the product seem like a legitimate, non-infringing copy, even if it means posting a stock photo of the product. It’s all about the financial incentive since a “legitimate” copy is worth more. So, how would a legitimately concerned copyright holders determine if the item is really infringing? What about requiring that all auctioners provide an item’s unique product number on most electronic items that would also be logged onto eBay’s internal database?

]]>