Dodgy seller!

[goshow]

how do you know they copied and pasted the text? They might have re-typed it word for word.

can't really see any difference!

There isn't any difference. It's called freedom of speech!

This kind of thing goes on in the music industry all the time and it is totally legal. If you take a sample of a song that is copyrighted and use it yourself it is illegal, but if you replicate that piece of music perfectly using your own instruments it is not covered under the copyright and therefore legal.

OK, that applies to the text, the picture may be a different matter as it is clearly the one you took but once it is uploaded to the net i'm failry sure you lose all rights to it. Because it's uploaded to Ebay they then own the rights to it, unless you placed a copyright on it first, but for a pic of some bike tyres against a wall I very much doubt it.

If you've reported it to ebay they'll probably remove the listing but look at the big picture of it all, nobody has been financially hurt, nobody has been injured and noones life is going to change becasue of it. It's not the ned of the world. :?

 

[Tallpaul]

There isn't any difference. It's called freedom of speech!

Good grief, plagiarism is not exercising ones right to freedom of speech!

 

[MikeC]

My Uncle's called Ned, is he the Ned of the world? That would be cool.

I think the problem is just a basic lack of honesty. He is claiming to be the first seller of the tyres which came off one of his bikes, when he's not. I guess the listing isn't illegal, but pinching someone's listing is a bloody cheek and he is taking it for granted that the original seller's description was accurate.

 

[goshow]

There isn't any difference. It's called freedom of speech!

Good grief, plagiarism is not exercising ones right to freedom of speech!

LOL, as far as i remember that refers more to journalism and authors!

I can see why the OP has a beef with it but as stated, I just don't see the problem with it, It's not the end of the world. :roll:

 

[Dead Rats]

Fair points goshow definitely, my rights are shot once I upload to the 'net and it's not a issue of any real importance in the bigger picture - I totally agree... the problem I have with it is that the seller uses my words as his own - so what else is he (inadvertantly or otherwise) dishonestly claiming? eg, he could be selling on a fork which he describes as excellent in terms of their compression and rebound performance when he has not even used them once. It just irks me a bit that's all - it's like when you see ads on Gumtree where the seller writes about how a bike performs as if he's never ridden it (if you see what I mean) - I've lost count of how many bikes I see on there which are clearly nicked... and this eBay seller (who is just trying to make a buck really in all fairness to him) I think should just be a little more careful with his descriptions else he might get caught out with a prospective buyer's question or feedback.

I'm glad I started this thread as it's raised a fair debate

 

[MikeC]

LOL, as far as i remember that refers more to journalism and authors!

Any written word surely? Even GCSE students.

 

[Dead Rats]

ps, in response to:

This kind of thing goes on in the music industry all the time and it is totally legal. If you take a sample of a song that is copyrighted and use it yourself it is illegal, but if you replicate that piece of music perfectly using your own instruments it is not covered under the copyright and therefore legal.

I think that's a different issue; by replicating a piece of music you are not sampling - and therefore depriving the original musicians of performing royalties - you are covering. In this case, the seller is - in effect - sampling me, and passing my description off as his own.

And anyway, aren't moral values more important than legal ones? If not, women still wouldn't have the right to vote!

 

[ratbane]

..

Interesting.

Isn't the first time this has happened, and I don't see an issue (though I would take my own pics and sort new text as a matter of course).

The seller may have fitted them to their bike for a short while?

 

[W W Biffta]

the problem I have with it is that the seller uses my words as his own - so what else is he (inadvertantly or otherwise) dishonestly claiming? eg, he could be selling on a fork which he describes as excellent in terms of their compression and rebound performance when he has not even used them once. It just irks me a bit that's all

that'd be my main problem, certainly wouldnt wanna deal with him now i know.
fact is the advert is a load of crap, who knows what else he says/does is. but hey, welcome to the free market. consumer capitalism rocks!

 

[goshow]

Fair points goshow definitely, my rights are shot once I upload to the 'net and it's not a issue of any real importance in the bigger picture - I totally agree... the problem I have with it is that the seller uses my words as his own - so what else is he (inadvertantly or otherwise) dishonestly claiming? eg, he could be selling on a fork which he describes as excellent in terms of their compression and rebound performance when he has not even used them once. It just irks me a bit that's all - it's like when you see ads on Gumtree where the seller writes about how a bike performs as if he's never ridden it (if you see what I mean) - I've lost count of how many bikes I see on there which are clearly nicked... and this eBay seller (who is just trying to make a buck really in all fairness to him) I think should just be a little more careful with his descriptions else he might get caught out with a prospective buyer's question or feedback.

I'm glad I started this thread as it's raised a fair debate

My appologies, I hadn't read the full advert desc and didn't realise that the seller had used descriptions refering to "owned from new" and such alike.

That being the case the desc is dishonest and therefore he/she is deceiving the buyer.