pwcc (part two)

[calvindog]

Mandating new auction-wide scanner rules is laughable. As is special, scary stationary for hobby watchdog groups run by the fraudsters themselves.

Lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments are the only things which will stop the fraud -- or at least slow it down.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Mandating new auction-wide scanner rules is laughable. As is special, scary stationary for hobby watchdog groups run by the fraudsters themselves.

Lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments are the only things which will stop the fraud -- or at least slow it down.

No one is talking about mandating auction-wide scanner rules. No one here even has the authority to do that. But pressuring auction houses to disclose their scanning policies, not change their settings, and put it in their terms is doable.

Pressuring companies to disclose policies is not a new tactic. Companies are often pressured to disclose labor practices, political donations, carbon-footprint information, among other things.

Will increased disclosure stop fraud? No, but it could slow it down - just like lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments. And pressuring for disclosure and prosecution don't have to be mutually exclusive - they can be done in conjunction.

Just remember: you can prosecute - and lose. It is no slam dunk, either.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Just remember: you can prosecute - and lose. It is no slam dunk, either.

Ask anyone who's ever been indicted how much they enjoyed the experience, win or lose.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Ask anyone who's ever been indicted how much they enjoyed the experience, win or lose.

Good luck getting them to prosecute, though. They would most likely view PWCC as small-time. The worst you have against them right now is a scan of a $500 hockey card. That's a far cry from a trimmed PSA 8 t206 Wagner.

Thousands of examples of ebay fraud have been posted on this message board, and how many of them have been prosecuted by the feds? Very few, if any. Can't see how PWCC would be any different.

My guess is that if the feds were going to prosecute anyone about scan enhancing, it would be one of the larger auction houses selling big-ticket items, not a small-time ebay outfit.

[calvindog]

I would say that your knowledge of what went into the determination to indict Mastro -- which is what you're referring to -- is wrong. I would also say that the idea that the Feds are the only prosecutorial body available to handle fraud such as we've seen here is also incorrect.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I would say that your knowledge of what went into the determination to indict Mastro -- which is what you're referring to -- is wrong. I would also say that the idea that the Feds are the only prosecutorial body available to handle fraud such as we've seen here is also incorrect.

As far as I can tell, no prosecutorial body has been overly enthusiastic about combating ebay fraud. That might be because ebay is a $50billion business with shareholders who include hedge funds and billionaires, and those people don't want to see lawsuits regarding ebay in the news since it is bad P.R. for ebay. If the worst example you have is a $500 hockey card, then the $500 hockey card is 1/100,000,000th of the assets of ebay. To say that you are financially over-matched is to be putting it mildly.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

As far as I can tell, no prosecutorial body has been overly enthusiastic about combating ebay fraud. That might be because ebay is a $50billion business with shareholders who include hedge funds and billionaires, and those people don't want to see lawsuits regarding ebay in the news since it is bad P.R. for ebay. If the worst example you have is a $500 hockey card, then the $500 hockey card is 1/100,000,000th of the assets of ebay. To say that you are financially over-matched is to be putting it mildly.

LOL why are you discussing something of which you have no idea? Do you think prosecutors simply take as evidence just what people on Net 54 dig up? Or do they send out subpoenas and conduct an investigation? Do you think that a red dot on a single card is the iceberg itself or just the tip?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

But pressuring auction houses to disclose their scanning policies, not change their settings, and put it in their terms is doable.

Why do you keep going back to the same argument about AHs not changing their scanner settings? If an auction house can provide a scan that is an exact representation of a card with a $20 scanner they have to tweak a bit (change the scanner settings), why do you care? What does it matter as long as it's an exact represenation?

I don’t care if they have their 3 year old color me a picture of the card with Crayons, as long it is a close representation of the card. Lance said it best earlier in this thread, “Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it."

[CMIZ5290]

I ask again, has anyone notified Ebay? If so, what is there stance? As I said before, probably a complete waste of time....

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I ask again, has anyone notified Ebay? If so, what is there stance? As I said before, probably a complete waste of time....

My guess is that eBay doesn't care. They would probably tell us that is what Buyer Protection is for - if a card in hand doesn't match the scan in the listing, then send it back.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Why do you keep going back to the same argument about AHs not changing their scanner settings? If an auction house can provide a scan that is an exact representation of a card with a $20 scanner they have to tweak a bit (change the scanner settings), why do you care? What does it matter as long as it's an exact represenation?

I don’t care if they have their 3 year old color me a picture of the card with Crayons, as long it is a close representation of the card. Lance said it best earlier in this thread, “Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it."

It is a moot point because the auction houses already own and use CCD scanners.