Hi all, interesting ruling by French courts on 30th June....of E-commerce and brand protection, advertisement consumer protection and so many other issues. best alice http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/01/ebay.hitechcrime eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries The world's biggest online auctioneer, eBay, was ordered by a French court yesterday to pay €38.6m euros in damages to the luxury goods group LVMH for negligence in allowing the sale of fake bags, lipsticks and designer clothes. The fine of more than £30m is the biggest eBay has faced in Europe and is the latest episode in a series of long-running legal battles it has fought with fashion and cosmetic giants. The site immediately appealed against the ruling and said luxury goods giants were using the issue of fakes as a "stalking horse" to attack online commerce and keep a stranglehold of sales outlets to the detriment of consumers. The confrontation has implications for the access of online shoppers to luxury brands through auction sites and also for eBay's business model as it faces the issue of how to police its platform of global sites, which at any one time have about 100m items for sale across the world. The issue has particular resonance in France - the base for some of the world's biggest luxury goods companies, who have placed themselves at the forefront of fighting counterfeit. The French company LVMH, the world's leading luxury brand, went to the Paris commercial courts demanding €50m in damages over two issues: first it argued that eBay had committed "serious errors" by not doing enough to prevent the sales of fake goods in 2006, including Louis Vuitton bags and Christian Dior products; it also argued that eBay had allowed unauthorised sales of perfume brands owned by the group: Christian Dior, Kenzo, Givenchy and Guerlain. It said that even if the perfumes were real and not fake, their sale on the site violated Christian Dior's distribution network which only allowed sales through specialist dealers. The court ordered eBay to stop selling the perfumes or running ads for the brands, or face a fine of €50,000 a day. The ruling ordered eBay to pay €19.28m to Louis Vuitton Malletier and €17.3m to its sister company Christian Dior Couture for damage to their brand images and causing moral harm. It must also pay €3.25m to the four perfume brands for sales in violation of its authorised network. Pierre Gode, an aide to Bernard Arnault, the LVMH president and France's richest man, told AFP: "It is a major first, because of the principles that it recognises and the amount sought." He said the decision was crucial for the creative industry and "protected brands by considering them an important part of French heritage". The ruling comes a month after another French court ordered eBay to pay the fashion house Hermes €20,000 for allowing the sale of counterfeit handbags. The site said it had stepped up its measures to prevent counterfeiting since 2006 and now spends $20m (£10m) a year keeping the site "clean", using programmes to analyse suspicious sales and working with the owners of brand rights. Last year, 2m items suspected of being counterfeit were removed from the site and 50,000 sales stopped. Vanessa Canzini, an eBay spokeswoman in Europe said: "The big issue here doesn't seem to be to do with counterfeiting - if it was, they would have gone after the counterfeiters. It's about saying we are a luxury brand, we don't want others selling our goods, even if they are real. That's why we will appeal this decision." In a statement, eBay said big luxury goods labels had a hidden agenda and were using fakes as a "stalking horse". "It is clear that eBay has become a focal point for certain brand owners' desire to exact ever greater control over e-commerce. We view these decisions as a step backwards for the consumers and businesses whom we empower every day." The group, which saw around $60bn worth of goods sold across its platforms last year, says that as a host for independent vendors, it has a limited responsibility and capacity to regulate what is sold. But luxury goods groups have accused eBay, which earns a commission on sales, of facilitating forgeries and fakes by providing a marketplace for vendors who knowingly sell counterfeit items. The site is also facing other lawsuits worldwide: the New York jeweller Tiffany & Co has sued the site for turning a blind eye to sales of counterfeits, describing it as a "rat's nest" of fake goods. It also faces action from L'Oreal in the UK and five other European countries.
Oh my, oh my, oh my, I have serious issues with this action. I think it goes directly against the individual right of the consumer. PLs allow me to elaborate. First, let's set the issue of counterfeit aside and consider the context that has been set. Louis Vutton, Christian Dior, Hermes etc consider themselves exclusive brands that cater to the upper echelons of society. Fine, any vendor) of any product can pick his/her target market/niche and position/brand appropriately. However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes! Even a court of law will uphold my ownership right if I have 'proof of purchase'. So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever' in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand. What these aristo-brats are saying is that I cannot advertise it on Digger classifieds in the Standard, the Sarit center billboard, ebay, yahoo shops,or my personal website because none of them is part of the dealer network. This is totally wrong! Now back to counterfeit. Yes, there is a problem, but how do you accuse a trading platform of complicity in a case where the market is Internet Based and allows anyone, anywhere in the world to advertise and sell anything for any price? There should be other measures taken to dig out counterfeits and protect the firms' investments in creation of their brands. There are laws, and procedures for this. What these guys have done to ebay is classic case of shooting the messenger. Am I the only one aggravated by this? Brian Ps France should have a 'FICTANET' to make noise about this. Sent from my iPhone On 05 Jul 2008, at 9:17 PM, alice <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Hi all,
interesting ruling by French courts on 30th June....of E-commerce and brand protection, advertisement consumer protection and so many other issues.
best alice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/01/ebay.hitechcrime
eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries
The world's biggest online auctioneer, eBay, was ordered by a French court yesterday to pay €38.6m euros in damages to the luxury goods g roup LVMH for negligence in allowing the sale of fake bags, lipsticks and designer clothes.
The fine of more than £30m is the biggest eBay has faced in Europe a nd is the latest episode in a series of long-running legal battles it has fought with fashion and cosmetic giants.
The site immediately appealed against the ruling and said luxury goods giants were using the issue of fakes as a "stalking horse" to attack online commerce and keep a stranglehold of sales outlets to the detriment of consumers.
The confrontation has implications for the access of online shoppers to luxury brands through auction sites and also for eBay's business model as it faces the issue of how to police its platform of global sites, which at any one time have about 100m items for sale across the world.
The issue has particular resonance in France - the base for some of the world's biggest luxury goods companies, who have placed themselves at the forefront of fighting counterfeit.
The French company LVMH, the world's leading luxury brand, went to the Paris commercial courts demanding €50m in damages over two issues: f irst it argued that eBay had committed "serious errors" by not doing enough to prevent the sales of fake goods in 2006, including Louis Vuitton bags and Christian Dior products; it also argued that eBay had allowed unauthorised sales of perfume brands owned by the group: Christian Dior, Kenzo, Givenchy and Guerlain.
It said that even if the perfumes were real and not fake, their sale on the site violated Christian Dior's distribution network which only allowed sales through specialist dealers. The court ordered eBay to stop selling the perfumes or running ads for the brands, or face a fine of €50,000 a day.
The ruling ordered eBay to pay €19.28m to Louis Vuitton Malletier a nd €17.3m to its sister company Christian Dior Couture for damage to th eir brand images and causing moral harm. It must also pay €3.25m to the four perfume brands for sales in violation of its authorised network.
Pierre Gode, an aide to Bernard Arnault, the LVMH president and France's richest man, told AFP: "It is a major first, because of the principles that it recognises and the amount sought." He said the decision was crucial for the creative industry and "protected brands by considering them an important part of French heritage".
The ruling comes a month after another French court ordered eBay to pay the fashion house Hermes €20,000 for allowing the sale of counterfe it handbags.
The site said it had stepped up its measures to prevent counterfeiting since 2006 and now spends $20m (£10m) a year keeping the site "clean ", using programmes to analyse suspicious sales and working with the owners of brand rights. Last year, 2m items suspected of being counterfeit were removed from the site and 50,000 sales stopped. Vanessa Canzini, an eBay spokeswoman in Europe said: "The big issue here doesn't seem to be to do with counterfeiting - if it was, they would have gone after the counterfeiters. It's about saying we are a luxury brand, we don't want others selling our goods, even if they are real. That's why we will appeal this decision."
In a statement, eBay said big luxury goods labels had a hidden agenda and were using fakes as a "stalking horse". "It is clear that eBay has become a focal point for certain brand owners' desire to exact ever greater control over e-commerce. We view these decisions as a step backwards for the consumers and businesses whom we empower every day."
The group, which saw around $60bn worth of goods sold across its platforms last year, says that as a host for independent vendors, it has a limited responsibility and capacity to regulate what is sold. But luxury goods groups have accused eBay, which earns a commission on sales, of facilitating forgeries and fakes by providing a marketplace for vendors who knowingly sell counterfeit items.
The site is also facing other lawsuits worldwide: the New York jeweller Tiffany & Co has sued the site for turning a blind eye to sales of counterfeits, describing it as a "rat's nest" of fake goods. It also faces action from L'Oreal in the UK and five other European countries.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
Hi all,
interesting ruling by French courts on 30th June....of E-commerce and brand protection, advertisement consumer protection and so many other issues.
best alice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/01/ebay.hitechcrime
eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries
The world's biggest online auctioneer, eBay, was ordered by a French court yesterday to pay 38.6m euros in damages to the luxury goods g roup LVMH for negligence in allowing the sale of fake bags, lipsticks and designer clothes.
The fine of more than £30m is the biggest eBay has faced in Europe a nd is the latest episode in a series of long-running legal battles it has fought with fashion and cosmetic giants.
The site immediately appealed against the ruling and said luxury goods giants were using the issue of fakes as a "stalking horse" to attack online commerce and keep a stranglehold of sales outlets to the detriment of consumers.
The confrontation has implications for the access of online shoppers to luxury brands through auction sites and also for eBay's business model as it faces the issue of how to police its platform of global sites, which at any one time have about 100m items for sale across the world.
The issue has particular resonance in France - the base for some of the world's biggest luxury goods companies, who have placed themselves at the forefront of fighting counterfeit.
The French company LVMH, the world's leading luxury brand, went to the Paris commercial courts demanding 50m in damages over two issues: f irst it argued that eBay had committed "serious errors" by not doing enough to prevent the sales of fake goods in 2006, including Louis Vuitton bags and Christian Dior products; it also argued that eBay had allowed unauthorised sales of perfume brands owned by the group: Christian Dior, Kenzo, Givenchy and Guerlain.
It said that even if the perfumes were real and not fake, their sale on the site violated Christian Dior's distribution network which only allowed sales through specialist dealers. The court ordered eBay to stop selling the perfumes or running ads for the brands, or face a fine of 50,000 a day.
The ruling ordered eBay to pay 19.28m to Louis Vuitton Malletier a nd 17.3m to its sister company Christian Dior Couture for damage to th eir brand images and causing moral harm. It must also pay 3.25m to the four perfume brands for sales in violation of its authorised network.
Pierre Gode, an aide to Bernard Arnault, the LVMH president and France's richest man, told AFP: "It is a major first, because of the
"...However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes!..." "...So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever' in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand..." (Note: I'm not a lawyer nor do I know exactly what the law says about this) If by *belong* you mean it's mine and I can mess and tear it up the way I want then some products might not *belong* to you. E.g. I read/heard somewhere that you can't open up the XBox. It has something to do with Microsoft protecting technology. Another popular example is software. License agreements come with restrictions. Basically a product is composed of a number of things: The branding and logos which are trademarked, the intellectual property and technology which are patented, and all these don't *belong* to you even if you paid for the product (Also note that the price you paid includes the cost of researching the patented technology and branding and logo costs but still they will not belong to you). What belongs to the consumer is being able to consume the product how it's the manufacturer advises you to consume it otherwise your warranty is void. Because of the variety of products that exist in the world today this *belong* issue is a debate and that's one of the reasons open source exists. As the E-bay spokesperson said it's more about manufacturers trying to keep a certain image. Counterfeits existed before ebay. Ebay has an image of being a place to find goods at an affordable price (depending on quality) but luxury brands are not associated with this sort of image. 8~) --- On Sun, 7/6/08, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote: From: Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries To: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 4:48 AM Oh my, oh my, oh my, I have serious issues with this action. I think it goes directly against the individual right of the consumer. PLs allow me to elaborate. First, let's set the issue of counterfeit aside and consider the context that has been set. Louis Vutton, Christian Dior, Hermes etc consider themselves exclusive brands that cater to the upper echelons of society. Fine, any vendor) of any product can pick his/her target market/niche and position/brand appropriately. However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes! Even a court of law will uphold my ownership right if I have 'proof of purchase'. So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever' in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand. What these aristo-brats are saying is that I cannot advertise it on Digger classifieds in the Standard, the Sarit center billboard, ebay, yahoo shops,or my personal website because none of them is part of the dealer network. This is totally wrong! Now back to counterfeit. Yes, there is a problem, but how do you accuse a trading platform of complicity in a case where the market is Internet Based and allows anyone, anywhere in the world to advertise and sell anything for any price? There should be other measures taken to dig out counterfeits and protect the firms' investments in creation of their brands. There are laws, and procedures for this. What these guys have done to ebay is classic case of shooting the messenger. Am I the only one aggravated by this? Brian Ps France should have a 'FICTANET' to make noise about this. Sent from my iPhone On 05 Jul 2008, at 9:17 PM, alice <alice@apc.org> wrote: principles
that it recognises and the amount sought." He said the decision was crucial for the creative industry and "protected brands by considering them an important part of French heritage".
The ruling comes a month after another French court ordered eBay to pay the fashion house Hermes 20,000 for allowing the sale of counterfe it handbags.
The site said it had stepped up its measures to prevent counterfeiting since 2006 and now spends $20m (£10m) a year keeping the site "clean
", using programmes to analyse suspicious sales and working with the owners of brand rights. Last year, 2m items suspected of being counterfeit were removed from the site and 50,000 sales stopped. Vanessa Canzini, an eBay spokeswoman in Europe said: "The big issue here doesn't seem to be to do with counterfeiting - if it was, they would have gone after the counterfeiters. It's about saying we are a luxury brand, we don't want others selling our goods, even if they are real. That's why we will appeal this decision."
In a statement, eBay said big luxury goods labels had a hidden agenda and were using fakes as a "stalking horse". "It is clear that eBay has become a focal point for certain brand owners' desire to exact ever greater control over e-commerce. We view these decisions as a step backwards for the consumers and businesses whom we empower every day."
The group, which saw around $60bn worth of goods sold across its platforms last year, says that as a host for independent vendors, it has a limited responsibility and capacity to regulate what is sold. But luxury goods groups have accused eBay, which earns a commission on sales, of facilitating forgeries and fakes by providing a marketplace for vendors who knowingly sell counterfeit items.
The site is also facing other lawsuits worldwide: the New York jeweller Tiffany & Co has sued the site for turning a blind eye to sales of counterfeits, describing it as a "rat's nest" of fake goods. It also faces action from L'Oreal in the UK and five other European countries.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kiriinya2000%40yahoo.co...
Good points Wes. But *if* I do own a designer set of Louis Vutton suitcases. Then decide that they are the wrong "shade of pink" (as many of these rich folk do). Then I have a right advertise it in order to find a buyer. That right includes *identifying* the merchandise. Maybe something like 6 matched Louis Vutton suitcases, never used. What the aristo-brats are saying is that I shouldn't even use their name if Iwakt to sell the stuff. Thieves! :-) B Sent from my iPhone On 06 Jul 2008, at 11:05 AM, wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"...However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes!..." "...So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever' in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand..."
(Note: I'm not a lawyer nor do I know exactly what the law says about this)
If by *belong* you mean it's mine and I can mess and tear it up the way I want then some products might not *belong* to you. E.g. I read/ heard somewhere that you can't open up the XBox. It has something to do with Microsoft protecting technology. Another popular example is software. License agreements come with restrictions.
Basically a product is composed of a number of things: The branding and logos which are trademarked, the intellectual property and technology which are patented, and all these don't *belong* to you even if you paid for the product (Also note that the price you paid includes the cost of researching the patented technology and branding and logo costs but still they will not belong to you). What belongs to the consumer is being able to consume the product how it's the manufacturer advises you to consume it otherwise your warranty is void.
Because of the variety of products that exist in the world today this *belong* issue is a debate and that's one of the reasons open source exists.
As the E-bay spokesperson said it's more about manufacturers trying to keep a certain image. Counterfeits existed before ebay. Ebay has an image of being a place to find goods at an affordable price (depending on quality) but luxury brands are not associated with this sort of image.
8~)
--- On Sun, 7/6/08, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote: From: Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake lu xuries To: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 4:48 AM
Oh my, oh my, oh my,
I have serious issues with this action.
I think it goes directly against the individual right of the consumer. PLs allow me to elaborate.
First, let's set the issue of counterfeit aside and consider the context that has been set.
Louis Vutton, Christian Dior, Hermes etc consider themselves exclusive brands that cater to the upper echelons of society. Fine, any vendor)
of any product can pick his/her target market/niche and position/brand appropriately.
However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes! Even a court of law will uphold my ownership right if I have 'proof of purchase'.
So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever'
in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand.
What these aristo-brats are saying is that I cannot advertise it on Digger classifieds in the Standard, the Sarit center billboard, ebay, yahoo shops,or my personal website because none of them is part of the dealer network.
This is totally wrong!
Now back to counterfeit. Yes, there is a problem, but how do you accuse a trading platform of complicity in a case where the market is Internet Based and allows anyone, anywhere in the world to advertise and sell anything for any price?
There should be other measures taken to dig out counterfeits and protect the firms' investments in creation of their brands. There are laws, and procedures for this.
What these guys have done to ebay is classic case of shooting the messenger.
Am I the only one aggravated by this?
Brian
Ps France should have a 'FICTANET' to make noise about this.
Sent from my iPhone
On 05 Jul 2008, at 9:17 PM, alice <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Hi all,
interesting ruling by French courts on 30th June....of E-commerce and brand protection, advertisement consumer protection and so many other issues.
best alice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/01/ebay.hitechcrime
eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries
The world's biggest online auctioneer, eBay, was ordered by a French court yesterday to pay €38.6m euros in damages to the luxury goods
roup LVMH for negligence in allowing the sale of fake bags, lipsticks and designer clothes.
The fine of more than £30m is the biggest eBay has faced in Europe a nd is the latest episode in a series of long-running legal battles it has fought with fashion and cosmetic giants.
The site immediately appealed against the ruling and said luxury goods giants were using the issue of fakes as a "stalking horse" to attack online commerce and keep a stranglehold of sales outlets to the detriment of consumers.
The confrontation has implications for the access of online shoppers to luxury brands through auction sites and also for eBay's business model as it faces the issue of how to police its platform of global sites, which at any one time have about 100m items for sale across the world.
The issue has particular resonance in France - the base for some of the world's biggest luxury goods companies, who have placed themselves at the forefront of fighting counterfeit.
The French company LVMH, the world's leading luxury brand, went to
Paris commercial courts demanding €50m in damages over two issues: f irst it argued that eBay had committed "serious errors" by not doing enough to prevent the sales of fake goods in 2006, including Louis Vuitton bags and Christian Dior products; it also argued that eBay had allowed unauthorised sales of perfume brands owned by the group: Christian Dior, Kenzo, Givenchy and Guerlain.
It said that even if the perfumes were real and not fake, their sale on the site violated Christian Dior's distribution network which only allowed sales through specialist dealers. The court ordered eBay to stop selling the perfumes or running ads for the brands, or face a fine of €50,000 a day.
The ruling ordered eBay to pay €19.28m to Louis Vuitton Malletier a nd €17.3m to its sister company Christian Dior Couture for damage to
eir brand images and causing moral harm. It must also pay €3.25m to t he four perfume brands for sales in violation of its authorised network.
Pierre Gode, an aide to Bernard Arnault, the LVMH president and France's richest man, told AFP: "It is a major first, because of the
g the th principles
that it recognises and the amount sought." He said the decision was crucial for the creative industry and "protected brands by considering them an important part of French heritage".
The ruling comes a month after another French court ordered eBay to pay the fashion house Hermes €20,000 for allowing the sale of counter fe it handbags.
The site said it had stepped up its measures to prevent counterfeiting since 2006 and now spends $20m (£10m) a year keeping the site "cle an
", using programmes to analyse suspicious sales and working with the owners of brand rights. Last year, 2m items suspected of being counterfeit were removed from the site and 50,000 sales stopped. Vanessa Canzini, an eBay spokeswoman in Europe said: "The big issue here doesn't seem to be to do with counterfeiting - if it was, they would have gone after the counterfeiters. It's about saying we are a luxury brand, we don't want others selling our goods, even if they are real. That's why we will appeal this decision."
In a statement, eBay said big luxury goods labels had a hidden agenda and were using fakes as a "stalking horse". "It is clear that eBay has become a focal point for certain brand owners' desire to exact ever greater control over e-commerce. We view these decisions as a step backwards for the consumers and businesses whom we empower every day."
The group, which saw around $60bn worth of goods sold across its platforms last year, says that as a host for independent vendors, it has a limited responsibility and capacity to regulate what is sold. But luxury goods groups have accused eBay, which earns a commission on sales, of facilitating forgeries and fakes by providing a marketplace for vendors who knowingly sell counterfeit items.
The site is also facing other lawsuits worldwide: the New York jeweller Tiffany & Co has sued the site for turning a blind eye to sales of counterfeits, describing it as a "rat's nest" of fake goods. It also faces action from L'Oreal in the UK and five other European countries.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kiriinya2000%40yahoo.co...
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
To me it is the same as suing an Internet Service Provider for allowing *illegal* content to flow through their network. Who then often blame P2P file sharing technology-irrespective of whether consumers are sharing Creative Commons content, such as ElephantsDream <http://orange.blender.org/> or Big Buck Bunny movies <http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/> Those very rich people should invest part of ther money to catch actual offenders not to condemn consumers wholesale and in the process block the majority from their rightful enjoyment of technological advancement to ensure internet openness free from private or government censorships is maintained. I wish we could discuss how (draft) e-transactions bill similarly exempts "mere conduit" service providers from legal action. E-bay is mere conduit, AFAIK. <excerpt> PART IV– LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF SERVICE PROVIDERS 22. (1) A service provider shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of third‐party material in the form of electronic versions to which he/she merely provides access to or for operating facilities for information systems or transmitting, routing or storage of electronic versions via an information system under its control, as long as the service provider: ...... (2) The acts of transmission, routing and of provision of access referred to in subsection (1) include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place: (a) for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the information system; (b) in a manner that makes it ordinarily inaccessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients; and (c) for a period no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission. 23. A service provider shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of third‐party material in the form of electronic versions for the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of that data, where the purpose of storing such data is to make the onward transmission of the data more efficient to other recipients of the service upon their request, as long as the service provider: (a) does not modify the data; (b) complies with conditions on access to the data; (c) complies with rules regarding the updating of the data, specified in a manner widely recognized and used by industry; (d) does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognized and used by industry, to obtain information on the use of the data; and (e) removes or disables access to the data it has stored upon receiving a notification of unlawful activity by Service Providers referred to in section 26 (f) Has not performed actions (a)‐(e) or any other illegal actions knowingly or intentionally (g) Conforms with the rules and regulations cited in this Act 24. (1) A service provider is not liable for criminal or civil liability in Hosting respect of third‐party material in the form of electronic versions where the service provider provides a service at the request of the recipient of the service that consists of the storage of data provided by a recipient of the service, as long as the service provider‐ (a) does not have actual knowledge that the electronic version or an activity relating to the electronic version is unlawfully infringing upon the rights of a third party; or (b) is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the unlawfully infringing activity or the unlawfully infringing nature of the electronic version is apparent; and (c) upon receipt of notice of removal of information referred to in section 26, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the data. (2) The limitations on liability established by this section do not apply to a service provider unless it has designated an agent to receive notifications of unlawful infringement and has provided through its service, including on its websites in locations accessible to the public, the contact details of the agent. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply when the recipient of the service is acting under the authority or the control of the service provider. 25. A service provider is not liable for criminal or civil liability in respect of Information third‐party material in the form of electronic versions if the service provider refers or links users to a web page containing an infringing electronic version or an unlawfully infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hyperlink, where the service provider: (a) does not have actual knowledge that the electronic version or an activity relating to the electronic version is unlawfully infringing upon the rights of that person; (b) is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the unlawfully infringing activity or nature of the electronic version is apparent; (c) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; and (d) removes, or disables access to, the reference or link to the data message or activity within a reasonable time after being informed that the electronic version or the activity relating to such electronic version, unlawfully infringes upon the rights of a user or users. <excerpt> You could download the draft bill from consumers "work in progress";) <http://ictconsumers.org/pdfdownloads/etransaction_bill_2007_version_3.0_draft_5b.092407.pdf> regards, On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
Good points Wes. But *if* I do own a designer set of Louis Vutton suitcases. Then decide that they are the wrong "shade of pink" (as many of these rich folk do). Then I have a right advertise it in order to find a buyer. That right includes *identifying* the merchandise. Maybe something like 6 matched Louis Vutton suitcases, never used. What the aristo-brats are saying is that I shouldn't even use their name if Iwakt to sell the stuff. Thieves! :-) B
Sent from my iPhone On 06 Jul 2008, at 11:05 AM, wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"...However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes!..." "...So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever' in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand..."
(Note: I'm not a lawyer nor do I know exactly what the law says about this)
If by *belong* you mean it's mine and I can mess and tear it up the way I want then some products might not *belong* to you. E.g. I read/heard somewhere that you can't open up the XBox. It has something to do with Microsoft protecting technology. Another popular example is software. License agreements come with restrictions.
Basically a product is composed of a number of things: The branding and logos which are trademarked, the intellectual property and technology which are patented, and all these don't *belong* to you even if you paid for the product (Also note that the price you paid includes the cost of researching the patented technology and branding and logo costs but still they will not belong to you). What belongs to the consumer is being able to consume the product how it's the manufacturer advises you to consume it otherwise your warranty is void.
Because of the variety of products that exist in the world today this *belong* issue is a debate and that's one of the reasons open source exists.
As the E-bay spokesperson said it's more about manufacturers trying to keep a certain image. Counterfeits existed before ebay. Ebay has an image of being a place to find goods at an affordable price (depending on quality) but luxury brands are not associated with this sort of image.
8~)
--- On Sun, 7/6/08, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries To: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 4:48 AM
Oh my, oh my, oh my,
I have serious issues with this action.
I think it goes directly against the individual right of the consumer. PLs allow me to elaborate.
First, let's set the issue of counterfeit aside and consider the context that has been set.
Louis Vutton, Christian Dior, Hermes etc consider themselves exclusive brands that cater to the upper echelons of society. Fine, any vendor)
of any product can pick his/her target market/niche and position/brand appropriately.
However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes! Even a court of law will uphold my ownership right if I have 'proof of purchase'.
So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever'
in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand.
What these aristo-brats are saying is that I cannot advertise it on Digger classifieds in the Standard, the Sarit center billboard, ebay, yahoo shops,or my personal website because none of them is part of the dealer network.
This is totally wrong!
Now back to counterfeit. Yes, there is a problem, but how do you accuse a trading platform of complicity in a case where the market is Internet Based and allows anyone, anywhere in the world to advertise and sell anything for any price?
There should be other measures taken to dig out counterfeits and protect the firms' investments in creation of their brands. There are laws, and procedures for this.
What these guys have done to ebay is classic case of shooting the messenger.
Am I the only one aggravated by this?
Brian
Ps France should have a 'FICTANET' to make noise about this.
Sent from my iPhone
On 05 Jul 2008, at 9:17 PM, alice <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Hi all,
interesting ruling by French courts on 30th June....of E-commerce and brand protection, advertisement consumer protection and so many other issues.
best alice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/01/ebay.hitechcrime
eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries
The world's biggest online auctioneer, eBay, was ordered by a French court yesterday to pay €38.6m euros in damages to the luxury goods g roup LVMH for negligence in allowing the sale of fake bags, lipsticks and designer clothes.
The fine of more than £30m is the biggest eBay has faced in Europe a nd is the latest episode in a series of long-running legal battles it has fought with fashion and cosmetic giants.
The site immediately appealed against the ruling and said luxury goods giants were using the issue of fakes as a "stalking horse" to
online commerce and keep a stranglehold of sales outlets to the detriment of consumers.
The confrontation has implications for the access of online shoppers to luxury brands through auction sites and also for eBay's business model as it faces the issue of how to police its platform of global sites, which at any one time have about 100m items for sale across the world.
The issue has particular resonance in France - the base for some of the world's biggest luxury goods companies, who have placed themselves at the forefront of fighting counterfeit.
The French company LVMH, the world's leading luxury brand, went to the Paris commercial courts demanding €50m in damages over two issues: f irst it argued that eBay had committed "serious errors" by not doing enough to prevent the sales of fake goods in 2006, including Louis Vuitton bags and Christian Dior products; it also argued that eBay had allowed unauthorised sales of perfume brands owned by the group: Christian Dior, Kenzo, Givenchy and Guerlain.
It said that even if the perfumes were real and not fake, their sale on the site violated Christian Dior's distribution network which only allowed sales through specialist dealers. The court ordered eBay to stop selling the perfumes or running ads for the brands, or face a fine of €50,000 a day.
The ruling ordered eBay to pay €19.28m to Louis Vuitton Malletier a nd €17.3m to its sister company Christian Dior Couture for damage to th eir brand images and causing moral harm. It must also pay €3.25m to the four perfume brands for sales in violation of its authorised network.
Pierre Gode, an aide to Bernard Arnault, the LVMH president and France's richest man, told AFP: "It is a major first, because of the
attack principles
that it recognises and the amount sought." He said the decision was crucial for the creative industry and "protected brands by considering them an important part of French heritage".
The ruling comes a month after another French court ordered eBay to pay the fashion house Hermes €20,000 for allowing the sale of counterfe it handbags.
The site said it had stepped up its measures to prevent counterfeiting since 2006 and now spends $20m (£10m) a year keeping the site "clean
", using programmes to analyse suspicious sales and working with the owners of brand rights. Last year, 2m items suspected of being counterfeit were removed from the site and 50,000 sales stopped. Vanessa Canzini, an eBay spokeswoman in Europe said: "The big issue here doesn't seem to be to do with counterfeiting - if it was, they would have gone after the counterfeiters. It's about saying we are a luxury brand, we don't want others selling our goods, even if they are real. That's why we will appeal this decision."
In a statement, eBay said big luxury goods labels had a hidden agenda and were using fakes as a "stalking horse". "It is clear that eBay has become a focal point for certain brand owners' desire to exact ever greater control over e-commerce. We view these decisions as a step backwards for the consumers and businesses whom we empower every day."
The group, which saw around $60bn worth of goods sold across its platforms last year, says that as a host for independent vendors, it has a limited responsibility and capacity to regulate what is sold. But luxury goods groups have accused eBay, which earns a commission on sales, of facilitating forgeries and fakes by providing a marketplace for vendors who knowingly sell counterfeit items.
The site is also facing other lawsuits worldwide: the New York jeweller Tiffany & Co has sued the site for turning a blind eye to sales of counterfeits, describing it as a "rat's nest" of fake goods. It also faces action from L'Oreal in the UK and five other European countries.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kiriinya2000%40yahoo.co...
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmai...
I think ISPs should be subject to prosecution for 'harmful' content that may appear or flow thro their networks, unless: -they have explicitly stated otherwise, in some kind of terms & conditions, transferring responsibility for any such material to a third party -there is evidence that they have put in sufficient procedures & controls in place to prohibit such They must have policies that govern the way they do business with their clients, otherwise they could be used as superhighways without traffic rules, and can end up like some FM stations in Kenya... Somebody ought to be in control. How do we ensure it is not deliberate action? In the case in question, probably it is a lesson for consumers to carefully read 'terms & conditions of purchase/use'. Unless such terms & conditions do not exist, only then would a disclaimer appended to web ads may not be necessary. To me, it is the amount we should be talking about. -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+skisonzo=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+skisonzo=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Gakuru , Alex Sent: 06 July 2008 16:05 To: skisonzo@gmail.com Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke Subject: Re: [kictanet] eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries To me it is the same as suing an Internet Service Provider for allowing *illegal* content to flow through their network. Who then often blame P2P file sharing technology-irrespective of whether consumers are sharing Creative Commons content, such as ElephantsDream <http://orange.blender.org/> or Big Buck Bunny movies <http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/> Those very rich people should invest part of ther money to catch actual offenders not to condemn consumers wholesale and in the process block the majority from their rightful enjoyment of technological advancement to ensure internet openness free from private or government censorships is maintained. I wish we could discuss how (draft) e-transactions bill similarly exempts "mere conduit" service providers from legal action. E-bay is mere conduit, AFAIK. <excerpt> PART IV– LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF SERVICE PROVIDERS 22. (1) A service provider shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of third‐party material in the form of electronic versions to which he/she merely provides access to or for operating facilities for information systems or transmitting, routing or storage of electronic versions via an information system under its control, as long as the service provider: ...... (2) The acts of transmission, routing and of provision of access referred to in subsection (1) include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place: (a) for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the information system; (b) in a manner that makes it ordinarily inaccessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients; and (c) for a period no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission. 23. A service provider shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of third‐party material in the form of electronic versions for the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of that data, where the purpose of storing such data is to make the onward transmission of the data more efficient to other recipients of the service upon their request, as long as the service provider: (a) does not modify the data; (b) complies with conditions on access to the data; (c) complies with rules regarding the updating of the data, specified in a manner widely recognized and used by industry; (d) does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognized and used by industry, to obtain information on the use of the data; and (e) removes or disables access to the data it has stored upon receiving a notification of unlawful activity by Service Providers referred to in section 26 (f) Has not performed actions (a)‐(e) or any other illegal actions knowingly or intentionally (g) Conforms with the rules and regulations cited in this Act 24. (1) A service provider is not liable for criminal or civil liability in Hosting respect of third‐party material in the form of electronic versions where the service provider provides a service at the request of the recipient of the service that consists of the storage of data provided by a recipient of the service, as long as the service provider‐ (a) does not have actual knowledge that the electronic version or an activity relating to the electronic version is unlawfully infringing upon the rights of a third party; or (b) is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the unlawfully infringing activity or the unlawfully infringing nature of the electronic version is apparent; and (c) upon receipt of notice of removal of information referred to in section 26, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the data. (2) The limitations on liability established by this section do not apply to a service provider unless it has designated an agent to receive notifications of unlawful infringement and has provided through its service, including on its websites in locations accessible to the public, the contact details of the agent. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply when the recipient of the service is acting under the authority or the control of the service provider. 25. A service provider is not liable for criminal or civil liability in respect of Information third‐party material in the form of electronic versions if the service provider refers or links users to a web page containing an infringing electronic version or an unlawfully infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hyperlink, where the service provider: (a) does not have actual knowledge that the electronic version or an activity relating to the electronic version is unlawfully infringing upon the rights of that person; (b) is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the unlawfully infringing activity or nature of the electronic version is apparent; (c) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; and (d) removes, or disables access to, the reference or link to the data message or activity within a reasonable time after being informed that the electronic version or the activity relating to such electronic version, unlawfully infringes upon the rights of a user or users. <excerpt> You could download the draft bill from consumers "work in progress";) <http://ictconsumers.org/pdfdownloads/etransaction_bill_2007_version_3.0_draft_5b.092407.pdf> regards, On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
Good points Wes. But *if* I do own a designer set of Louis Vutton suitcases. Then decide that they are the wrong "shade of pink" (as many of these rich folk do). Then I have a right advertise it in order to find a buyer. That right includes *identifying* the merchandise. Maybe something like 6 matched Louis Vutton suitcases, never used. What the aristo-brats are saying is that I shouldn't even use their name if Iwakt to sell the stuff. Thieves! :-) B
Sent from my iPhone On 06 Jul 2008, at 11:05 AM, wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"...However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes!..." "...So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever' in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand..."
(Note: I'm not a lawyer nor do I know exactly what the law says about this)
If by *belong* you mean it's mine and I can mess and tear it up the way I want then some products might not *belong* to you. E.g. I read/heard somewhere that you can't open up the XBox. It has something to do with Microsoft protecting technology. Another popular example is software. License agreements come with restrictions.
Basically a product is composed of a number of things: The branding and logos which are trademarked, the intellectual property and technology which are patented, and all these don't *belong* to you even if you paid for the product (Also note that the price you paid includes the cost of researching the patented technology and branding and logo costs but still they will not belong to you). What belongs to the consumer is being able to consume the product how it's the manufacturer advises you to consume it otherwise your warranty is void.
Because of the variety of products that exist in the world today this *belong* issue is a debate and that's one of the reasons open source exists.
As the E-bay spokesperson said it's more about manufacturers trying to keep a certain image. Counterfeits existed before ebay. Ebay has an image of being a place to find goods at an affordable price (depending on quality) but luxury brands are not associated with this sort of image.
8~)
--- On Sun, 7/6/08, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries To: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 4:48 AM
Oh my, oh my, oh my,
I have serious issues with this action.
I think it goes directly against the individual right of the consumer. PLs allow me to elaborate.
First, let's set the issue of counterfeit aside and consider the context that has been set.
Louis Vutton, Christian Dior, Hermes etc consider themselves exclusive brands that cater to the upper echelons of society. Fine, any vendor)
of any product can pick his/her target market/niche and position/brand appropriately.
However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes! Even a court of law will uphold my ownership right if I have 'proof of purchase'.
So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever'
in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand.
What these aristo-brats are saying is that I cannot advertise it on Digger classifieds in the Standard, the Sarit center billboard, ebay, yahoo shops,or my personal website because none of them is part of the dealer network.
This is totally wrong!
Now back to counterfeit. Yes, there is a problem, but how do you accuse a trading platform of complicity in a case where the market is Internet Based and allows anyone, anywhere in the world to advertise and sell anything for any price?
There should be other measures taken to dig out counterfeits and protect the firms' investments in creation of their brands. There are laws, and procedures for this.
What these guys have done to ebay is classic case of shooting the messenger.
Am I the only one aggravated by this?
Brian
Ps France should have a 'FICTANET' to make noise about this.
Sent from my iPhone
On 05 Jul 2008, at 9:17 PM, alice <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Hi all,
interesting ruling by French courts on 30th June....of E-commerce and brand protection, advertisement consumer protection and so many other issues.
best alice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/01/ebay.hitechcrime
eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries
The world's biggest online auctioneer, eBay, was ordered by a French court yesterday to pay €38.6m euros in damages to the luxury goods g roup LVMH for negligence in allowing the sale of fake bags, lipsticks and designer clothes.
The fine of more than £30m is the biggest eBay has faced in Europe a nd is the latest episode in a series of long-running legal battles it has fought with fashion and cosmetic giants.
The site immediately appealed against the ruling and said luxury goods giants were using the issue of fakes as a "stalking horse" to
online commerce and keep a stranglehold of sales outlets to the detriment of consumers.
The confrontation has implications for the access of online shoppers to luxury brands through auction sites and also for eBay's business model as it faces the issue of how to police its platform of global sites, which at any one time have about 100m items for sale across the world.
The issue has particular resonance in France - the base for some of the world's biggest luxury goods companies, who have placed themselves at the forefront of fighting counterfeit.
The French company LVMH, the world's leading luxury brand, went to the Paris commercial courts demanding €50m in damages over two issues: f irst it argued that eBay had committed "serious errors" by not doing enough to prevent the sales of fake goods in 2006, including Louis Vuitton bags and Christian Dior products; it also argued that eBay had allowed unauthorised sales of perfume brands owned by the group: Christian Dior, Kenzo, Givenchy and Guerlain.
It said that even if the perfumes were real and not fake, their sale on the site violated Christian Dior's distribution network which only allowed sales through specialist dealers. The court ordered eBay to stop selling the perfumes or running ads for the brands, or face a fine of €50,000 a day.
The ruling ordered eBay to pay €19.28m to Louis Vuitton Malletier a nd €17.3m to its sister company Christian Dior Couture for damage to th eir brand images and causing moral harm. It must also pay €3.25m to the four perfume brands for sales in violation of its authorised network.
Pierre Gode, an aide to Bernard Arnault, the LVMH president and France's richest man, told AFP: "It is a major first, because of the
attack principles
that it recognises and the amount sought." He said the decision was crucial for the creative industry and "protected brands by considering them an important part of French heritage".
The ruling comes a month after another French court ordered eBay to pay the fashion house Hermes €20,000 for allowing the sale of counterfe it handbags.
The site said it had stepped up its measures to prevent counterfeiting since 2006 and now spends $20m (£10m) a year keeping the site "clean
", using programmes to analyse suspicious sales and working with the owners of brand rights. Last year, 2m items suspected of being counterfeit were removed from the site and 50,000 sales stopped. Vanessa Canzini, an eBay spokeswoman in Europe said: "The big issue here doesn't seem to be to do with counterfeiting - if it was, they would have gone after the counterfeiters. It's about saying we are a luxury brand, we don't want others selling our goods, even if they are real. That's why we will appeal this decision."
In a statement, eBay said big luxury goods labels had a hidden agenda and were using fakes as a "stalking horse". "It is clear that eBay has become a focal point for certain brand owners' desire to exact ever greater control over e-commerce. We view these decisions as a step backwards for the consumers and businesses whom we empower every day."
The group, which saw around $60bn worth of goods sold across its platforms last year, says that as a host for independent vendors, it has a limited responsibility and capacity to regulate what is sold. But luxury goods groups have accused eBay, which earns a commission on sales, of facilitating forgeries and fakes by providing a marketplace for vendors who knowingly sell counterfeit items.
The site is also facing other lawsuits worldwide: the New York jeweller Tiffany & Co has sued the site for turning a blind eye to sales of counterfeits, describing it as a "rat's nest" of fake goods. It also faces action from L'Oreal in the UK and five other European countries.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kiriinya2000%40yahoo.co...
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmai...
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: skisonzo@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/skisonzo%40gmail.com
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Sylvester Kisonzo <skisonzo@securenet.co.ke> wrote:
I think ISPs should be subject to prosecution for 'harmful' content that may appear or flow thro their networks, unless: -they have explicitly stated otherwise, in some kind of terms & conditions, transferring responsibility for any such material to a third party - there is evidence that they have put in sufficient procedures & controls in place to prohibit such
Are you, by any chance, saying that ISPs need to "take a look at all traffic" going through the wires and block what they think is inappropriate? How do you define inappropriate content? In whose context? Talking from practical experience, it was very difficult to get a universal definition of "harmful" content. What we came up with then was debatable as some clients thought they were harmful, and requested blockage, while others did not agree. Pornography is one such example. And it's not right to censor what people do on the Internet after they pay for the service. This is only done in China and you must be knowing how popular it is with the Chinese.
They must have policies that govern the way they do business with their clients, otherwise they could be used as superhighways without traffic rules, and can end up like some FM stations in Kenya... Somebody ought to be in control. How do we ensure it is not deliberate action?
I find it extremely out of scope trying to compare FM stations with ISPs as they don't operate along the same protocols. -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards!" --from a /. post
Good point, but how do you define 'harmful' and on whose terms? This debate went full circle in USA, Europe and Asia and was also a hot item for about 3 years in South Africa. In almost all cases the end result was that the ISP 'cannot' be held responsible for content that their customers put up, but they have a 'duty' to assist law enforcement if and when 'illegal' content is reported. In the case of the FM station there was enough evidence to point to an internal policy to propagate illegal content. So, I still come back to my earlier point. If I want to sell my Toyota AE-100 - I have a right to 'identify' it using the brand (though the brand does not in itself belong to me) - but I have a 'transient' ownership as far as it relates to 'my' toyota. People even refer to it as Bryo's toyota. Of course once it is sold, it now belongs to someone else. B Sent from my iPhone On 07 Jul 2008, at 9:13 AM, "Sylvester Kisonzo" <skisonzo@securenet.co.ke
wrote:
I think ISPs should be subject to prosecution for 'harmful' content that may appear or flow thro their networks, unless: -they have explicitly stated otherwise, in some kind of terms & conditions, transferring responsibility for any such material to a third party -there is evidence that they have put in sufficient procedures & controls in place to prohibit such
They must have policies that govern the way they do business with their clients, otherwise they could be used as superhighways without traffic rules, and can end up like some FM stations in Kenya... Somebody ought to be in control. How do we ensure it is not deliberate action?
In the case in question, probably it is a lesson for consumers to carefully read 'terms & conditions of purchase/use'. Unless such terms & conditions do not exist, only then would a disclaimer appended to web ads may not be necessary.
To me, it is the amount we should be talking about.
-----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+skisonzo=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces +skisonzo=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Gakuru , Alex Sent: 06 July 2008 16:05 To: skisonzo@gmail.com Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke Subject: Re: [kictanet] eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake lu xuries
To me it is the same as suing an Internet Service Provider for allowing *illegal* content to flow through their network. Who then often blame P2P file sharing technology-irrespective of whether consumers are sharing Creative Commons content, such as ElephantsDream <http://orange.blender.org/> or Big Buck Bunny movies <http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/>
Those very rich people should invest part of ther money to catch actual offenders not to condemn consumers wholesale and in the process block the majority from their rightful enjoyment of technological advancement to ensure internet openness free from private or government censorships is maintained.
I wish we could discuss how (draft) e-transactions bill similarly exempts "mere conduit" service providers from legal action. E-bay is mere conduit, AFAIK.
<excerpt>
PART IV– LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF SERVICE PROVIDERS 22. (1) A service provider shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of third‐party material in the form of electronic versions to which he/she merely provides access to or for operating facilities for information systems or transmitting, routing or storage of electronic versions via an information system under its control, as long as the service provider: ......
(2) The acts of transmission, routing and of provision of access referred to in subsection (1) include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place: (a) for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the information system; (b) in a manner that makes it ordinarily inaccessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients; and (c) for a period no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.
23. A service provider shall not be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of third‐party material in the form of electronic versions for the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of that data, where the purpose of storing such data is to make the onward transmission of the data more efficient to other recipients of the service upon their request, as long as the service provider:
(a) does not modify the data; (b) complies with conditions on access to the data; (c) complies with rules regarding the updating of the data, specified in a manner widely recognized and used by industry; (d) does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognized and used by industry, to obtain information on the use of the data; and (e) removes or disables access to the data it has stored upon receiving a notification of unlawful activity by Service Providers referred to in section 26 (f) Has not performed actions (a)‐(e) or any other illegal actions knowingly or intentionally (g) Conforms with the rules and regulations cited in this Act
24. (1) A service provider is not liable for criminal or civil liability in Hosting respect of third‐party material in the form of electronic versions where the service provider provides a service at the request of the recipient of the service that consists of the storage of data provided by a recipient of the service, as long as the service provider‐
(a) does not have actual knowledge that the electronic version or an activity relating to the electronic version is unlawfully infringing upon the rights of a third party; or (b) is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the unlawfully infringing activity or the unlawfully infringing nature of the electronic version is apparent; and (c) upon receipt of notice of removal of information referred to in section 26, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the data.
(2) The limitations on liability established by this section do not apply to a service provider unless it has designated an agent to receive notifications of unlawful infringement and has provided through its service, including on its websites in locations accessible to the public, the contact details of the agent.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply when the recipient of the service is acting under the authority or the control of the service provider.
25. A service provider is not liable for criminal or civil liability in respect of Information third‐party material in the form of electronic versions if the service provider refers or links users to a web page containing an infringing electronic version or an unlawfully infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hyperlink, where the service provider:
(a) does not have actual knowledge that the electronic version or an activity relating to the electronic version is unlawfully infringing upon the rights of that person;
(b) is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the unlawfully infringing activity or nature of the electronic version is apparent;
(c) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; and (d) removes, or disables access to, the reference or link to the data message or activity within a reasonable time after being informed that the electronic version or the activity relating to such electronic version, unlawfully infringes upon the rights of a user or users. <excerpt>
You could download the draft bill from consumers "work in progress";)
<http://ictconsumers.org/pdfdownloads/etransaction_bill_2007_version_3.0_draf...
regards,
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
Good points Wes. But *if* I do own a designer set of Louis Vutton suitcases. Then decide that they are the wrong "shade of pink" (as many of these rich folk do). Then I have a right advertise it in order to find a buyer. That right includes *identifying* the merchandise. Maybe something like 6 matched Louis Vutton suitcases, never used. What the aristo-brats are saying is that I shouldn't even use their name if Iwakt to sell the stuff. Thieves! :-) B
Sent from my iPhone On 06 Jul 2008, at 11:05 AM, wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"...However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes!..." "...So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever' in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand..."
(Note: I'm not a lawyer nor do I know exactly what the law says about this)
If by *belong* you mean it's mine and I can mess and tear it up the way I want then some products might not *belong* to you. E.g. I read/heard somewhere that you can't open up the XBox. It has something to do with Microsoft protecting technology. Another popular example is software. License agreements come with restrictions.
Basically a product is composed of a number of things: The branding and logos which are trademarked, the intellectual property and technology which are patented, and all these don't *belong* to you even if you paid for the product (Also note that the price you paid includes the cost of researching the patented technology and branding and logo costs but still they will not belong to you). What belongs to the consumer is being able to consume the product how it's the manufacturer advises you to consume it otherwise your warranty is void.
Because of the variety of products that exist in the world today this *belong* issue is a debate and that's one of the reasons open source exists.
As the E-bay spokesperson said it's more about manufacturers trying to keep a certain image. Counterfeits existed before ebay. Ebay has an image of being a place to find goods at an affordable price (depending on quality) but luxury brands are not associated with this sort of image.
8~)
--- On Sun, 7/6/08, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries To: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 4:48 AM
Oh my, oh my, oh my,
I have serious issues with this action.
I think it goes directly against the individual right of the consumer. PLs allow me to elaborate.
First, let's set the issue of counterfeit aside and consider the context that has been set.
Louis Vutton, Christian Dior, Hermes etc consider themselves exclusive brands that cater to the upper echelons of society. Fine, any vendor)
of any product can pick his/her target market/niche and position/ brand appropriately.
However, once I buy the product, and *pay them dearly for it* does the product *belong* to me? I say yes! Even a court of law will uphold my ownership right if I have 'proof of purchase'.
So, since I own it. Can I do whatever I want with it? Pour it down the toilet, give it to my watchman, give it as a prize for best 'whatever'
in my son's school, or even sell it if I want to recapture some of the price premium I paid for the brand.
What these aristo-brats are saying is that I cannot advertise it on Digger classifieds in the Standard, the Sarit center billboard, ebay, yahoo shops,or my personal website because none of them is part of the dealer network.
This is totally wrong!
Now back to counterfeit. Yes, there is a problem, but how do you accuse a trading platform of complicity in a case where the market is Internet Based and allows anyone, anywhere in the world to advertise and sell anything for any price?
There should be other measures taken to dig out counterfeits and protect the firms' investments in creation of their brands. There are laws, and procedures for this.
What these guys have done to ebay is classic case of shooting the messenger.
Am I the only one aggravated by this?
Brian
Ps France should have a 'FICTANET' to make noise about this.
Sent from my iPhone
On 05 Jul 2008, at 9:17 PM, alice <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Hi all,
interesting ruling by French courts on 30th June....of E-commerce and brand protection, advertisement consumer protection and so many other issues.
best alice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/01/ebay.hitechcrime
eBay hit with £30m fine for sales of fake luxuries
The world's biggest online auctioneer, eBay, was ordered by a French court yesterday to pay €38.6m euros in damages to the luxury goo ds g roup LVMH for negligence in allowing the sale of fake bags, lipsticks and designer clothes.
The fine of more than £30m is the biggest eBay has faced in Euro pe a nd is the latest episode in a series of long-running legal battles it has fought with fashion and cosmetic giants.
The site immediately appealed against the ruling and said luxury goods giants were using the issue of fakes as a "stalking horse" to
online commerce and keep a stranglehold of sales outlets to the detriment of consumers.
The confrontation has implications for the access of online shoppers to luxury brands through auction sites and also for eBay's business model as it faces the issue of how to police its platform of global sites, which at any one time have about 100m items for sale across the world.
The issue has particular resonance in France - the base for some of the world's biggest luxury goods companies, who have placed themselves at the forefront of fighting counterfeit.
The French company LVMH, the world's leading luxury brand, went to the Paris commercial courts demanding €50m in damages over two issue s: f irst it argued that eBay had committed "serious errors" by not doing enough to prevent the sales of fake goods in 2006, including Louis Vuitton bags and Christian Dior products; it also argued that eBay had allowed unauthorised sales of perfume brands owned by the group: Christian Dior, Kenzo, Givenchy and Guerlain.
It said that even if the perfumes were real and not fake, their sale on the site violated Christian Dior's distribution network which only allowed sales through specialist dealers. The court ordered eBay to stop selling the perfumes or running ads for the brands, or face a fine of €50,000 a day.
The ruling ordered eBay to pay €19.28m to Louis Vuitton Malleti er a nd €17.3m to its sister company Christian Dior Couture for damage t o th eir brand images and causing moral harm. It must also pay €3.25m to the four perfume brands for sales in violation of its authorised network.
Pierre Gode, an aide to Bernard Arnault, the LVMH president and France's richest man, told AFP: "It is a major first, because of the
attack principles
that it recognises and the amount sought." He said the decision was crucial for the creative industry and "protected brands by considering them an important part of French heritage".
The ruling comes a month after another French court ordered eBay to pay the fashion house Hermes €20,000 for allowing the sale of count erfe it handbags.
The site said it had stepped up its measures to prevent counterfeiting since 2006 and now spends $20m (£10m) a year keeping the site "c lean
", using programmes to analyse suspicious sales and working with the owners of brand rights. Last year, 2m items suspected of being counterfeit were removed from the site and 50,000 sales stopped. Vanessa Canzini, an eBay spokeswoman in Europe said: "The big issue here doesn't seem to be to do with counterfeiting - if it was, they would have gone after the counterfeiters. It's about saying we are a luxury brand, we don't want others selling our goods, even if they are real. That's why we will appeal this decision."
In a statement, eBay said big luxury goods labels had a hidden agenda and were using fakes as a "stalking horse". "It is clear that eBay has become a focal point for certain brand owners' desire to exact ever greater control over e-commerce. We view these decisions as a step backwards for the consumers and businesses whom we empower every day."
The group, which saw around $60bn worth of goods sold across its platforms last year, says that as a host for independent vendors, it has a limited responsibility and capacity to regulate what is sold. But luxury goods groups have accused eBay, which earns a commission on sales, of facilitating forgeries and fakes by providing a marketplace for vendors who knowingly sell counterfeit items.
The site is also facing other lawsuits worldwide: the New York jeweller Tiffany & Co has sued the site for turning a blind eye to sales of counterfeits, describing it as a "rat's nest" of fake goods. It also faces action from L'Oreal in the UK and five other European countries.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kiriinya2000%40yahoo.co...
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmai...
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: skisonzo@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/skisonzo%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>
So, I still come back to my earlier point. If I want to sell my Toyota AE-100 - I have a right to 'identify' it using the brand (though the brand does not in itself belong to me) - but I have a 'transient' ownership as far as it relates to 'my' toyota. People even refer to it as Bryo's toyota. Of course once it is sold, it now belongs to someone else.
July 7, 2008. Intellectual Property Regime Stifles Science and Innovation, Nobel Laureates Say By Dugie Standeford for Intellectual Property Watch MANCHESTER, UK - The basic framework of the intellectual property (IP) regime aims to “close down access to knowledge” rather than allowing its dissemination, Professor Joseph Stiglitz said at a 5 July lecture on “Who Owns Science?” Stiglitz, a 2001 Nobel Laureate in Economics, and Professor John Sulston, a 2002 Nobel Laureate in Physiology/Medicine, launched Manchester University’s new Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation. Both were highly critical of today’s patent system, saying it stifles science and innovation. Link to the article: <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1129>
participants (7)
-
Alex Gakuru -
alice -
Brian Munyao Longwe -
Gakuru , Alex -
Odhiambo Washington -
Sylvester Kisonzo -
wesley kiriinya