>>> if he heard someone who couldn't sing, he should just step up and sing for them instead of commenting on it, right?
If the quality of the song could lead to your client losing 1 million dollars, then yes that's exactly right. You don't just sit by and complain later, "We lost." You get off your ass and do something.
If you choose to do nothing, then you have no right to insult the person(s) who tried their best. I've encountered this in my own life, where I was criticized by people for not running a club correctly, and yet a year earlier when those same persons had been asked to volunteer to be officers, they were silent.
If you're silent when people ask for your help, then you should remain silent all the way to the end. Don't criticize the brave souls who did the best they could, while you refused to help.
>>> It's the American People who don't give enough of a damn to participate in government
That's not the problem. Even if everyone voted, it's the lobbyists who hold the real power to control Congress, and these lobbyists are supported by trillions of corporate dollars. It's just like Thomas Jefferson predicted in the 1790s - the corporations will exert power over the government and no longer hear the voice of the people.
He should have stayed with his written testimony that he knew nothing about downloading anything. Or better yet, invoke his Constitutional right to remain silent.
I'm surprised they allowed the defendant on the stand. Maybe the rules for civil procedure are different than criminal.
I still think they should appeal the case rather than pay the fine. His sentence is equivalent to a life sentence since that's how long it would take him to work & earn the money. A "life sentence" seems cruel-and-unusual punishment (and therefore unconstitutional) for the mere act of bittorrenting 30 dollars worth of songs.
I don't appreciate your tone towards these people (calling them "incompetent" et cetera). If I recall correctly the team was led by a law school professor, who I presume has the same intelligence as the professors who taught you & took you from being a know-nothing student to a professional. In my humble opinion it isn't proper to be insulting a man who likely has a higher IQ than you do (and better manners too). Frankly you're acting juvenile with these insults.
Yes they lost the case, but do you really think you would have been able to win? If yes, then maybe you should have stepped forward to do the job, rather than sit on your ass and be the lawyerly-equivalent of a movie critic or Monday-morning quarterback.
>>>No mention of wanting to neg him because he wronged you, but only that you wanted to neg him because he negged you.
Smart sellers don't neg first. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. (-) "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" --- That's what the guy deserved. I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback.
The woman who filed a chargeback and STOLE my eighty dollars from me also deserved a negative. The fact that you think these buyers have earned shiny-green positives makes no logical sense to me, unless you are also a scam artist who enjoys ripping off sellers, and the elimination of negatives helps you achieve that goal more easily.
On my selling account I got negged by a buyer because he failed to read the "VHS" in the description, and thought he was getting a DVD. I tried to reason with him, but he was a hothead. And there was nothing I could do to protect either myself or future sellers, because we can't leave negatives even for douchebag buyers or scam artists. And now my reputation is damaged, and ditto my selling income.
This is a "fairer" system? To leave sellers vulnerable to blackmail? Onloyh fi you consider seller sgo be dirtbags deserivng of begfin vghsitr upon!!!! (sigh) I am a good and honest person. I did not deserve to be negged and have my future income damaged.
I had a seller make a similar "file with insurance" claim when I received a damaged LCD. At first I went-along with it but the post office said there's no box damage, therefore the item was already damaged when shipped, and the insurance voided.
But again, buyers have protection. I simply mailed back the LCD with tracking at about $1.50 cost. Then I filed with paypal who looked at the tracking number, considered it "returned", and I got my money back. As I said before, to date, no seller has ever succeeded in scamming me. (But buyers? Yep some have scammed me, because there's nothing to protect sellers from loss. Like the lady who got herself a free DTV converter box when she filed a chargeback and sucked ~$80 from my account.)
>>>if I had negged him for, as far as I could tell never shipping the item, he'd have negged me back.
I would have negged him immediately. As I mentioned before my buyer ID, prior to the changes, was down near 75% because I never hesitated to neg dishonest bastards like "sethpackard" (a guy who sells scratched discs but advertises them as like new). Plus buyer IDs are disposable. At any time I can simply open a new account and have a fresh 100% feedback.
Meanwhile...
On my selling account I got negged by a buyer because he failed to read the "VHS" in the description, and thought he was getting a DVD. I tried to reason with him, but he was a hothead. And there was nothing I could do to protect either myself or future sellers, because we can't leave negatives even for douchebag buyers or scam artists. And now my reputation is damaged, and ditto my selling income. This is a "fairer" system? To leave sellers vulnerable to blackmail? Onloyh fi you consider seller sgo be dirtbags deserivng of begfin vghsitr upon!!!! (sigh)
I am a good and honest person. I did not deserve to be negged and have my future income damaged.
Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
you'd neg him out of spite.
No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale.
Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
you'd neg him out of spite.
No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale.
Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
you'd neg him out of spite.
No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale.
Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
>>>Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
>>>Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
>>>you'd neg him out of spite.
No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
>>>And that's why you (rightfully) can't do it anymore.
I never said I was banned. I'm merely on their Ebay's "watch list". Once Christmas arrives and I go above 98% then I'll be okay again.
>>>you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale. >>>
Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
>>>Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
>>>Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
>>>you'd neg him out of spite.
No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
>>>And that's why you (rightfully) can't do it anymore.
I never said I was banned. I'm merely on their Ebay's "watch list". Once Christmas arrives and I go above 98% then I'll be okay again.
>>>you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale. >>>
Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
I wonder why Democrats/liberals are so arrogant and condescending to other people? Where do they get this superiority complex such that think all the rest of us are idiots?
The truth of the matter is that I have an IQ of 135, I have not just one but three college degrees, and I'm not a "twat" or idiot in any way, shape, or form. So please stop insulting me, and try to treat me as an equal, not an inferior.
>>Apparently, someone needed to pay more attention in spelling class.
Apparently someone lacks the IQ capacity to understand the difference between a "spelling error" and a "slip of the fingers on the keyboard" aka a typo. Go away dictionary bot.
>>>The problem, as I see it, is phone use during class... Not phone possession during class. The trick is making sure students understand that it is never OK to use the phone during class. In my experience school teachers aren't good at instituting such "zero tolerance" policies - nobody likes to be the one who has to lay down the law like that. >>>>>>>>>>
When did teachers turn-into such pussies?
If I were a teacher, I'd have absolutely no problem taking a disobedient kid's stuff away from him, and thereby force the kid to sit there at an empty desk and listen.
It's not theft. It's making a copy in violation of a *temporary* licene granted to the creator. Once the license expires, then the item is public domain, and copying is no longer a violation. The real question should be - "The Constitution says copyright was created to benefit society. How does society benefit from handing-down million-dollar judgements on hundreds of citizens?"
IMHO it's time to rethink the purpose of exclusive copy licensing, which is to enrich society with new creative output, not to suck the People dry of their lifetime wealth.
>>>If you want to live your life based on avoiding a judgment, then by all means ignore a summons for a lawsuit.
If I already know I'm going to lose - like the poor guy in this article - why waste my time and tens-of-thousands of dollar fighting? Better to lay low rather than stand-up and say, "Here I am - come and rape me RIAA."
That's like saying there's no right to vote. It's just an accidental by-product of having a representative legislature.
Actually in both cases, the jury and the vote, it's about the principle that all power comes from the citizens, and these methods provide a "check and balance" to rein-in an over-reaching government.
>>>Jurors are supposed to find the facts, not make them up
False. All power comes from the People, and an expression by a jury to void a conviction is as close to hearing the People's voice as you're going to get. Too many times the State locks-up innocents simply to protect Congress' ego (see the UK hacker case), and the jury provides balance to nullify such egregious injustices.
>>>Juries that ignore the facts can easily create injustices too.
Yes that's true, but I'd rather see 10 guilty persons go free, than even one innocent person go to jail. Better to exercise caution, otherwise we'll have more cases like the one in Maryland where a guy was jailed for 20+ years for a murder he never committed. (DNA testing proved his blood did not match the killer's blood found at the scene, so he was let go.)
>>> the fact is that at least 3 juries have listened to these cases and felt like the defendants ought to pay a substantial fine
Actually it's only 2. In this current case the *judge* declared the guy guilty, not the jury.
Also 2 juries declaring guilt doesn't mean much. Statistically out of every 100 trials, you'll only get 2.5 juries to nullify the conviction and release the defendent. Of course in more egregious cases like the Prohibition-era cases, that number will rise as high as 40 nullifications per hundred. We'll just have to wait until we hit 100 RIAA trials to see how "the people" feel about this law.
I don't own any real property (land). And a 2 million dollar judgement is unpayable. I'd be dead before I pay-off even a quarter that amount. That's why I'd laugh at the absurdity, and invite everyone else to laugh along with me.
I think if RIAA ever sues me, I'm not even going to bother defending myself.
- I'll just ignore the extortion letter demanding $500 or else. - Ignore the summons to court. - Not bother showing up. - Just wait for a verdict.
And then I'll have a good laugh about the whole thing, because no way would I pay a 1 or 2 million dollar fine. I'll declare bankruptcy, and then use the verdict as an opportunity to show how evil the record companies are.
- "Look what our country has become? A place where a person has to pay 2 million dollars because he heard 30 streamed songs off the net. Who's next? Your neighbor? Your self? Your child? This is tyranny pure and simple, not liberty." - except from the book, Corporate Slavery - The New Plantation
Slashdot Mirror
>>> if he heard someone who couldn't sing, he should just step up and sing for them instead of commenting on it, right?
If the quality of the song could lead to your client losing 1 million dollars, then yes that's exactly right. You don't just sit by and complain later, "We lost." You get off your ass and do something.
If you choose to do nothing, then you have no right to insult the person(s) who tried their best. I've encountered this in my own life, where I was criticized by people for not running a club correctly, and yet a year earlier when those same persons had been asked to volunteer to be officers, they were silent.
If you're silent when people ask for your help, then you should remain silent all the way to the end. Don't criticize the brave souls who did the best they could, while you refused to help.
>>> It's the American People who don't give enough of a damn to participate in government
That's not the problem. Even if everyone voted, it's the lobbyists who hold the real power to control Congress, and these lobbyists are supported by trillions of corporate dollars. It's just like Thomas Jefferson predicted in the 1790s - the corporations will exert power over the government and no longer hear the voice of the people.
Fool.
He should have stayed with his written testimony that he knew nothing about downloading anything. Or better yet, invoke his Constitutional right to remain silent.
>>>This wasn't a single track, he had shared hundreds of songs over a long period.
30 songs. The rest is conjectural and not proven, and therefore not relevant to this case.
I'm surprised they allowed the defendant on the stand. Maybe the rules for civil procedure are different than criminal.
I still think they should appeal the case rather than pay the fine. His sentence is equivalent to a life sentence since that's how long it would take him to work & earn the money. A "life sentence" seems cruel-and-unusual punishment (and therefore unconstitutional) for the mere act of bittorrenting 30 dollars worth of songs.
Dear NewYorkCountryLawyer:
I don't appreciate your tone towards these people (calling them "incompetent" et cetera). If I recall correctly the team was led by a law school professor, who I presume has the same intelligence as the professors who taught you & took you from being a know-nothing student to a professional. In my humble opinion it isn't proper to be insulting a man who likely has a higher IQ than you do (and better manners too). Frankly you're acting juvenile with these insults.
Yes they lost the case, but do you really think you would have been able to win? If yes, then maybe you should have stepped forward to do the job, rather than sit on your ass and be the lawyerly-equivalent of a movie critic or Monday-morning quarterback.
P.S.
>>>No mention of wanting to neg him because he wronged you, but only that you wanted to neg him because he negged you.
Smart sellers don't neg first. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. (-) "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" --- That's what the guy deserved. I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback.
The woman who filed a chargeback and STOLE my eighty dollars from me also deserved a negative. The fact that you think these buyers have earned shiny-green positives makes no logical sense to me, unless you are also a scam artist who enjoys ripping off sellers, and the elimination of negatives helps you achieve that goal more easily.
On my selling account I got negged by a buyer because he failed to read the "VHS" in the description, and thought he was getting a DVD. I tried to reason with him, but he was a hothead. And there was nothing I could do to protect either myself or future sellers, because we can't leave negatives even for douchebag buyers or scam artists. And now my reputation is damaged, and ditto my selling income.
This is a "fairer" system? To leave sellers vulnerable to blackmail? Onloyh fi you consider seller sgo be dirtbags deserivng of begfin vghsitr upon!!!! (sigh) I am a good and honest person. I did not deserve to be negged and have my future income damaged.
I had a seller make a similar "file with insurance" claim when I received a damaged LCD. At first I went-along with it but the post office said there's no box damage, therefore the item was already damaged when shipped, and the insurance voided.
But again, buyers have protection. I simply mailed back the LCD with tracking at about $1.50 cost. Then I filed with paypal who looked at the tracking number, considered it "returned", and I got my money back. As I said before, to date, no seller has ever succeeded in scamming me. (But buyers? Yep some have scammed me, because there's nothing to protect sellers from loss. Like the lady who got herself a free DTV converter box when she filed a chargeback and sucked ~$80 from my account.)
>>>if I had negged him for, as far as I could tell never shipping the item, he'd have negged me back.
I would have negged him immediately. As I mentioned before my buyer ID, prior to the changes, was down near 75% because I never hesitated to neg dishonest bastards like "sethpackard" (a guy who sells scratched discs but advertises them as like new). Plus buyer IDs are disposable. At any time I can simply open a new account and have a fresh 100% feedback.
Meanwhile...
On my selling account I got negged by a buyer because he failed to read the "VHS" in the description, and thought he was getting a DVD. I tried to reason with him, but he was a hothead. And there was nothing I could do to protect either myself or future sellers, because we can't leave negatives even for douchebag buyers or scam artists. And now my reputation is damaged, and ditto my selling income. This is a "fairer" system? To leave sellers vulnerable to blackmail? Onloyh fi you consider seller sgo be dirtbags deserivng of begfin vghsitr upon!!!! (sigh)
I am a good and honest person. I did not deserve to be negged and have my future income damaged.
Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
you'd neg him out of spite.
No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale.
Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
you'd neg him out of spite.
No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale.
Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
you'd neg him out of spite.
No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale.
Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
[edit] [bolding fixed]
>>>Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
>>>Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
>>>you'd neg him out of spite.
No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
>>>And that's why you (rightfully) can't do it anymore.
I never said I was banned. I'm merely on their Ebay's "watch list". Once Christmas arrives and I go above 98% then I'll be okay again.
>>>you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale.
>>>
Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
>>>Yes, they can and did. I was blocked (bid rejected) by a number of auctions for my feedback rating.
We sellers do have options to block bidders based-upon Nonpayment Strikes (my setting is 2 strikes will block a bidder). We have *no* way of blocking people based on feedback. Even if you had a miserable 25% feedback, you can still bid on my auction during the last minute, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. That's why low feedback doesn't stop buyers from being buyers. (Oh and sellers are not allowed to cancel bids either - that could earn me suspension.)
>>>Wait, how do you warn them other than feedback?
Well about two years ago I had a buyer who had negative feedback ("this guy uses bad checks - be warned"), and I was still obligated to sell the item, but I told him that due to his bad feedback I will only accept paypal. He sent me a check anyway, which no surprise was confirmed fake by my bank. Anyway... that's how Buyer Feedback can be used to warn future sellers to be wary.
But now, thanks to Ebay, we sellers have no warning. There's no way for us to know if our buyer is an honest person or a rampant scam artist. And yes there are scammers. Like the lady who bought a DTV converter box, and one day after I shipped it, she filed a chargeback thereby sucking eighty dollars from my account. In the old days, I could warn other sellers about this woman.
But under the new rules she's free to just keep scamming sellers.
I just find it disingenous that buyers are so damned concerned about themselves, but never care about the sellers losing money. Buyers have multiple layers of protection - ebay, paypal, Visa, and even the courts. Sellers have nothing to protect them. I apologize if I sound angry, but I've lost a lot of money from dishonest buyers, and I'm sick of it. No seller has ever succeeded in ripping me off (because of the layers of protection listed above), but I've lost several hundred dollars since 2002 due to buyer scams.
>>>you'd neg him out of spite.
No. I'd neg him because he doesn't know how to read, and that's exactly what the feedback would say - "This guy complained because he wanted a DVD, even though description clearly stated I was selling VHS" - Yes some buyers deserve to get negged for being idiots. If you disagree, then you're being unfair.
>>>And that's why you (rightfully) can't do it anymore.
I never said I was banned. I'm merely on their Ebay's "watch list". Once Christmas arrives and I go above 98% then I'll be okay again.
>>>you are pissed that you can't lash out against him, not because he didn't pay on time, not because anything he did regarding the sale, but because something unrelated to the sale.
>>>
Unrelated? I mailed him the item I advertised (a VHS movie of Alien), and he filed with paypal for a refund because he wanted a DVD. Losing my money because some douche wants to "unpay" me IS related to the ongoing sale and IS deserving of a negative feedback. The fact that you think he doesn't deserve a neg leads me to believe you're as much of a douche as that guy.
>>>it turns out you're a twat.
I wonder why Democrats/liberals are so arrogant and condescending to other people? Where do they get this superiority complex such that think all the rest of us are idiots?
The truth of the matter is that I have an IQ of 135, I have not just one but three college degrees, and I'm not a "twat" or idiot in any way, shape, or form. So please stop insulting me, and try to treat me as an equal, not an inferior.
Thank you.
>>>>>You cannot make studens pay attention
>>Apparently, someone needed to pay more attention in spelling class.
Apparently someone lacks the IQ capacity to understand the difference between a "spelling error" and a "slip of the fingers on the keyboard" aka a typo. Go away dictionary bot.
>>>The problem, as I see it, is phone use during class... Not phone possession during class. The trick is making sure students understand that it is never OK to use the phone during class. In my experience school teachers aren't good at instituting such "zero tolerance" policies - nobody likes to be the one who has to lay down the law like that.
>>>>>>>>>>
When did teachers turn-into such pussies?
If I were a teacher, I'd have absolutely no problem taking a disobedient kid's stuff away from him, and thereby force the kid to sit there at an empty desk and listen.
>>>"should people be allowed to steal music?"
It's not theft. It's making a copy in violation of a *temporary* licene granted to the creator. Once the license expires, then the item is public domain, and copying is no longer a violation. The real question should be - "The Constitution says copyright was created to benefit society. How does society benefit from handing-down million-dollar judgements on hundreds of citizens?"
IMHO it's time to rethink the purpose of exclusive copy licensing, which is to enrich society with new creative output, not to suck the People dry of their lifetime wealth.
>>>If you want to live your life based on avoiding a judgment, then by all means ignore a summons for a lawsuit.
If I already know I'm going to lose - like the poor guy in this article - why waste my time and tens-of-thousands of dollar fighting? Better to lay low rather than stand-up and say, "Here I am - come and rape me RIAA."
That's like saying there's no right to vote. It's just an accidental by-product of having a representative legislature.
Actually in both cases, the jury and the vote, it's about the principle that all power comes from the citizens, and these methods provide a "check and balance" to rein-in an over-reaching government.
>>>Jurors are supposed to find the facts, not make them up
False. All power comes from the People, and an expression by a jury to void a conviction is as close to hearing the People's voice as you're going to get. Too many times the State locks-up innocents simply to protect Congress' ego (see the UK hacker case), and the jury provides balance to nullify such egregious injustices.
>>>Juries that ignore the facts can easily create injustices too.
Yes that's true, but I'd rather see 10 guilty persons go free, than even one innocent person go to jail. Better to exercise caution, otherwise we'll have more cases like the one in Maryland where a guy was jailed for 20+ years for a murder he never committed. (DNA testing proved his blood did not match the killer's blood found at the scene, so he was let go.)
>>> the fact is that at least 3 juries have listened to these cases and felt like the defendants ought to pay a substantial fine
Actually it's only 2. In this current case the *judge* declared the guy guilty, not the jury.
Also 2 juries declaring guilt doesn't mean much. Statistically out of every 100 trials, you'll only get 2.5 juries to nullify the conviction and release the defendent. Of course in more egregious cases like the Prohibition-era cases, that number will rise as high as 40 nullifications per hundred. We'll just have to wait until we hit 100 RIAA trials to see how "the people" feel about this law.
I'm hoping for 10%.
>>>Using the phrase "merely downloading" is dangerously misleading, as he was not merely downloading them.
I notice you failed to explain what else he was doing, such that you think he deserves a life sentence. Care to elaborate?
I don't own any real property (land). And a 2 million dollar judgement is unpayable. I'd be dead before I pay-off even a quarter that amount. That's why I'd laugh at the absurdity, and invite everyone else to laugh along with me.
I think if RIAA ever sues me, I'm not even going to bother defending myself.
- I'll just ignore the extortion letter demanding $500 or else.
- Ignore the summons to court.
- Not bother showing up.
- Just wait for a verdict.
And then I'll have a good laugh about the whole thing, because no way would I pay a 1 or 2 million dollar fine. I'll declare bankruptcy, and then use the verdict as an opportunity to show how evil the record companies are.
- "Look what our country has become? A place where a person has to pay 2 million dollars because he heard 30 streamed songs off the net. Who's next? Your neighbor? Your self? Your child? This is tyranny pure and simple, not liberty." - except from the book, Corporate Slavery - The New Plantation