Will eBay win the battle of the monsters?

There was a time when Japan produced a string of monster movies featuring Godzilla battling various other monsters (Godzilla versus Mothra, Godzilla versus Ghidorah, even Godzilla versus King Kong). An email I received yesterday from eBay reminded me of the beginning of one of these epic battles, with eBay as Godzilla lining up to fight the evil designer brands.

eBay, we are told, was set up to empower the people (no, really), 'But that idea is now under threat from certain brand owners and manufacturers who are trying to turn back the clock and block the sale of their products on online marketplaces and other websites across the EU.'

Apparently these brands - and it's not just luxury items, but manufacturers of children's toys, electronic equipment, lawnmowers and pushchairs - argue they are trying to stop their products being sold on eBay to prevent the sale of counterfeits, but according to the big E, only 0.15% of listings last year were 'detected or reported as potentially counterfeit.'

While that statistic is itself a touch questionable, I do agree with eBay that this isn't about protecting against counterfeit, but an attempt to block the resale of products to keep prices artificially high. I didn't imagine I'd ever find myself siding with eBay, which can behave in an autocratic and bizarre fashion. For example, they prevented me from selling copies of my mystery party ebook Organizing a Murder because I was breaching copyright (whose?) I don't approve of people selling fakes and copies, but I do defend people's right to resell items they've bought legitimately, whether new or secondhand, and whatever its faults, eBay is a good way to do this.

So, in case you're interested, they have a petition, calling for an amendment to EU policy law. I won't include a link here, just on the off-chance there was something dubious about the email I was sent, but anyone with an eBay account should have a message in their inbox with details.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog