Slashdot Mirror
Google Bans Hundreds Of Pixel Phone Resellers From Their Google Accounts (theguardian.com)
Hundreds of Google users lost their access to their emails, photos, documents, "and anything else linked to their Google identity," wrote the Guardian last week, reporting on "hundreds of people who took advantage of a loophole in US sales tax to make a small profit on Pixel phones" -- and got all of the Google accounts suspended. Long-time Slashdot reader RockDoctor writes:
"The Google customers had all bought the phones from the company's Project Fi mobile carrier, and had them shipped directly to a reseller in New Hampshire, a US state with no sales tax. In return, the reseller split the profit with the customers," the Guardian adds.
People might ask, in a hurt tone of voice, "why are you doing this to me?" To which the obvious answer is "because we can, and you agreed to these (link to 3000 pages of text) terms and conditions, including our ability to do this"... The only question has been "When?", never "If?"
Update: Google "has reviewed banned users' appeals and re-enabled their accounts," reports The Guardian.
People might ask, in a hurt tone of voice, "why are you doing this to me?" To which the obvious answer is "because we can, and you agreed to these (link to 3000 pages of text) terms and conditions, including our ability to do this"... The only question has been "When?", never "If?"
Update: Google "has reviewed banned users' appeals and re-enabled their accounts," reports The Guardian.
One is legal and one isnt. Pay ur damn sales tax.
WA has no state income tax (I like that), its important people dont dodge the sales tax here. Goto Oregon and its the other way around, you automatically lose something like 10% of your income before you see it, at least here you only see the taxation if you spend it.
Then they're fine. Google's sales condition was that buyers “may only purchase Devices for [their] personal use [and] may not commercially resell any Device”. Note that word "commercially". Under consumer law, you can sell your own stuff (doctrine of first sale) so they can't stop you selling privately. Google's clearly taking the position that if you're buying expressly to sell to another retailer, that's buying wholesale -- business-to-business -- and not covered by doctrine of first sale.
This is actually a very interesting point of law, and would make a fascinating test case. I think I'm on Google's side here -- one of the reasons consumer protection is so important is because customers rarely get to negotiate the terms. As the buyers couldn't negotiate the terms, the purchase of contract here was consumer and Google's Ts&Cs are effectively saying "this is not a wholesale contract. if you treat it like one it's void." which seems pretty valid to me.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Having worked in theater for a while, I can assure you that ticket sales (in a traditional venue, at least) have practically nothing to do with the house costs... but it's complicated.
First, the house charges rent. That typically covers the wear & tear, upkeep, and basic services for the show during its run. There may be basic crew costs included, or they may be negotiated separately, but the bottom line is a big up-front cost for the producers to put a show on stage at all.
As tickets go on sale, they are priced according to what the market will bear, through a joint agreement between the producers and the house. Front-row seats for a Broadway show pull in above-average prices, but the nosebleed section behind a pillar next to the air conditioner barely sells for enough to cover the processing cost. However, selling cheap seats allows the producers to boast about the number of tickets sold, and helps the house meet goals for community access (which is very important for nonprofit houses). A cut of the ticket sales goes to the house (justified as covering the box office processing costs), but the majority of it goes to the producers... After all, the producers are also paying a lot of the expense to promote the show, often through separate advertising deals with the house company.
To address the original point: Ticket sales are based on the market, not the expenses. A nonprofit house working toward promoting the arts might indeed sell tickets at a huge loss to please their patron donors. A promoter trying to increase a band's popularity might cut prices, expecting to lose money on the whole show in an effort to boost popularity for higher return later. On the other hand, a top-bill show with great reviews in other venues could be priced at a huge profit, and still expect to sell.
Finally, once the show opens, the producers have the captive audience in the seats, excited about the show, and that's when the real money-making starts. Concessions are usually handled mostly by the house, but merchandise is usually purely profit for the producers. That's why the adage about merchandise rings true. It does allow promoters to cut ticket prices and still make a profit on the show, or at least reduce the expense they paid for promoting the brand. For small bands who have to pay their own expenses, this is the best chance they get at turning a profit on the show.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I don't buy into this non-sense. I'm not buying into Google's terms and conditions. If they sold a product the consumer has the right of resale regardless of what was in the terms of service. You can put whatever you like in a TOS and that doesn't make it legal.
"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."
Google may or may not be committing a crime blocking users from its site/services under normal conditions though. However they may be breaking the law (truth-in-advertising laws) because the purchaser has reasonable expectation to be able to use the services associated and advertised with their phone.