Reasons we believe eBay is not a venue but an open marketplace:

• eBay prohibits sellers from saying in their listings they accepts cash
• eBay won't allow sellers to advertise in their listings they accept Western Union payments
• eBay cancels auctions that still list BidPay (which is defunct) but not auctions that list Billpoint (which is defunct)
• eBay no longer "verifies" rights holders
• eBay holds sellers to a higher standard than VeRO Members
• eBay will take the word of a snitch that an article is fake
• eBay's staff makes decisions concerning whether an article is genuine or not
• eBay's reinstatement agreement with sellers is one-sided and illegal
• eBay gives VeRO Members seller information without notifying the seller

eBay prohibits sellers from saying in their listings they accepts cash. Why does eBay do this? Because eBay claims cash is an unsafe method of payment and is protecting both the seller and the buyer. What eBay really wants is to move the buyer to PayPal, which eBay owns, to enhance revenues.

eBay won't allow sellers to advertise in their listings they accept Western Union payments. Why? Western Union is a competitor of PayPal, owned by eBay, so eBay claims Western Union money orders aren't safe and therefore Big Brother eBay will not let you the seller advertise so in your listing. Again, we think it's to push the buyer to PayPal to enhance revenues.

eBay cancels auctions that still list BidPay (which is defunct) but not auctions that list Billpoint (which is defunct) The reasoning here is similar to above. Even though BidPay is out of business, by canceling the auction listings eBay can collect the revenues since eBay now does not refund the fees like before. In addition, the Billpoint links in listings now take you directly to PayPal. Did we mention Billpoint used to be owned and operated by eBay before eBay bought PayPal? Do we see a paatern here?

eBay no longer "verifies" rights holders but eBay still insists on calling the program the Verified Rights Owners Program, or VeRO Program. Why? We think its because it gives those who don't know the impression that eBay actually cares who sends it Notices Of Claimed Infringement ("NOCI").

eBay holds sellers to a higher standard than VeRO Members. Contrary to what eBay claims, it is not obligated under the law to terminate an auction when it receives an NOCI. The law holds eBay absolutely blameless if it terminates the auction on the word of a VeRO Member. Its eBay's way of avoiding a potential lawsuit from a rights holder. A VeRO Member who repeatedly orders auctions terminated only to later reinstate them is not held accountable but the alleged infringer, the seller, who has had auctions reinstated, can still find their eBay selling account suspended.

eBay's staff makes decisions concerning whether an article is genuine or not. eBay doesn't validate information it recieves from snitches, it justs acts on it. Sometimes it's a competitor who just wants to give someone grief. eBay doesn't care. eBay's crack staff will rush to terminate an auction even though the staff admitedly has no expertise in that area. See below. eBay terminated an auction belonging to Tabberone even though Tabberone had a signed agreement with Major League Baseball.

eBay's reinstatement agreement with sellers is one-sided and illegal. After a seller has been suspended for repeated VeRO shutdowns, eBay offers them a reinstatement agreement that, in our opinion, is one-sided and illegal. One sided because a VeRO member isn't held to the same level of committment, i.e., the seller agrees not to list any infringing item ever again. If the seller has another auction ended, the seller is permenently suspended even if the the takedown is retracted! How about suspending the VeRO Members when they have no valid grounds for a takedown, eBay? Oh, that's right, you're afraid they might sue you. As far as being illegal in our opinion, the reinstatement agreement states that the seller agrees under penalty of perjury that they will not relist an infringing item. Penalty of perjury is not something eBay can impose on someone without statutory authority which eBay does not have. The fact that numerous VeRO Members state under penalty of perjury that an item is infringing and then it's not after they've been sued doesn't seem to bother ebay one whit.

eBay gives VeRO Members seller information without notifying the seller. In normal dealings, when a seller or a buyer wants contact information, they can only get that information if they have had a sale with the other party. And then, eBay notifies the other party, giving the contact information to them as well. When a VeRO Member wants information, eBay gives them everything and doesn't bother to notify the seller, or buyer, that sensitive information has been given out by eBay. Have we memtioned that eBay does not verify the identity or the validity of a VeRO Member?

In April, 2004, eBay terminated two of Tabberone's auctions for violating its "Replica and Counterfeit Items Policy". The auctions were for two tissue box covers made from copyrighted fabric sold by Major League Baseball. The termination notice states eBay terminated the auctions, not MLB.

Guess what, eBay? Tabberone has a signed agreement with MLB allowing the manufacture and sale of these fabric items! MLB did not ask eBay to take down the auctions. eBay did it on their own to protect the trademarks of MLB. But who the hell gave eBay the authority to go around protecting trademarks rights? That's not it's function as just a venue.

• Takedown email from eBay.
• Tabberone email to Major League Baseball asking them what happened.
• Reinstatement email from eBay.
• Admission email from eBay where they admit MLB did not request the auctions terminated.

In July, 2004, eBay has been shutting down auctions by someone who has a copyrighted book that they are trying to sell. The pattern is obvious. A competitor keeps finding reasons to complain and eBay keeps "inventing" excuses to accomodate the competitor. And, eBay will never tell who the competitor is. The title of her book is "Searching for Louis Vuitton" and she has received a copyright on it from the US Copyright Office. eBay says she can't use "Louis Vuitton" to list her book. Huh? Notice the doublespeak and garbage in eBay's excuses.

• Background email with an interesting outline of what's been happening.
• Email from eBay July 26, 2004 where eBay makes a feeble attempt to justify terminating the auctions.
• Email from eBay July 28, 2004 where eBay again makes a feeble attempt to justify terminating the auctions.