Though I agree with a lot of the points made in this discussion, none of it applies to the injustices done when people fall victim to intentional fraud. Caveat emptor, sure, but when deceivers are presented and represented by a corporate entity as large as eBay, doesn't truth in advertising come into play at some point?
I feel it's my responsibility as a buyer to do the research before I buy, but should I get screwed over for being a particularly trusting soul? Are we not a part of this list because we're interested in sharing our knowledge and gleaning it from each other? Why send the ARSC and other recruiting bulletins out if part of our mission is not to share our research and bring others into the fold and trying to create a larger community of collectors? (Remember the article about lost collections and how young people just aren't interested anymore? Shouldn't we try to counter that in any way we can?) It's not, however, our responsibility to babysit. This being the state of things, I would propose to eBay a community of sentinels, if you will. They could have an email address specifically for people to report provably fraudulent sales, like the recent Idelia which I believe Loran had found the original listing to, and which a few of us knew who actually owned it. Every facet of high-dollar collecting should have such a watchdog community, if for no other reason than to protect the long term value of our most expensive items. If we know who currently owns a high-ticket phono that appears for sale, for instance, we could contact the eBay email address and get them to AT LEAST check out the auction, the bidders, the IP addresses of the bidders to see if they come from the same place, etc. It's idealistic, I know, but there are two kinds of evil - those who commit it, and those who knowingly stand back and watch it happen. If we're going to exchange 40 emails about a fake clock, wouldn't each of us sending eBay one email be worth considering? Is it asking so much? It would certainly improve eBay as a whole and make bidders feel safer, increasing collecting traffic and awareness. eBay could also advertise the sentinels' involvement, which might cut down on fraud listings to begin with. It would also dispose of any liability since any interference would come from the sales broker itself instead of individual collectors. And eBay would only need to investigate, not necessarily interfere. Lastly, though I agree a lot of buyers may be instant-gratification freaks with disposable income and auction fever who probably deserve to get screwed over, I object fervently to generalizing every bidder who ever bid on something fake without realizing it into that class categorically. It just ain't that simple. Sometimes one's overly trusting nature comes into play, sometimes the fakes are damned good ones, and sometimes research isn't as available as we'd like to believe (yes, Virginia, some people aren't as good at 'googling' as others), especially on very rare items, so I don't believe every fraud auction case is an injustice we should all comfortably write off as caveat emptor, par for the course, people are crap, get used to it. (And this is coming from a confessed cynic, folks.) There's got to be some middle ground. Best to All, Robert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Albert" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Phono-L] ebay fraud and caveat emptor > Legally if you butt into someones sale, it can be construed as restraint of > trade and if damages are proven you could be held liable. This is unlikely > to happen on ebay, but I would never interfere in someone elses business > transaction, even if I had knowledge that the buyer was being hosed. I am a > lender, and I see every day customers getting hosed on car deals, usually by > paying way too much, but it is highly unethical to interfere with the > transaction or to tell the buyer he is paying to much. I had to grit my > teeth when I saw someone bid $1500 on an Amberola 30. But he wanted it and > was willing to pay. Let the buyer beware. Al Menashe
