Hello members,

    This morning I have discovered a auction for Sony DD100 and BBS-10 body system woofer on eBay thatseller is outright lying about the seat back working perfectly and he has copied WORD FOR WORD and FORMAT pasted into his ad of my topic on the BBS-10 body system and copied much of my prior auction on eBay and layout on my sold DD100.     I am unsure of what legally he is allowed to use or not, but believe my exact words can not be used without my permission ?  Can any member tell me what law or laws he is breaking.  This is clear example of how others not members here use our knowledge etc to their benefit and usually to falsely represent what they are actually selling.   

    AgentOrange I believe you should also contact this seller directly from eBay as moderator of S2G and notify him about exact use of information from this forum.  We should have some discussion of this problem here to see what options we have as members that in future as we find such use of our information directly quoted as to what course's of action we have and can take to protect our community and buyers who may be basing a purchase on information in a auction that is twisted to help sell an item.

Here is link on ebay and item number to this auction.  # 181022425039

http://www.ebay.com/itm/181022...trksid=p5197.c0.m619

Here is my eBay email to the seller shadowboxing99  ( SHADOW IS RIGHT) sent this morning.

Hello, I am JohnEdward pro member on Stereo2Go. You have copied directly my exact words and format of information on the BBS-10 and much of word content on DD100 is exact wording/layout of my prior auction. Although you quote Stereo2Go and say previous auction this is not legally acceptable nor have I given permission for you to use my exact words.
FURTHERMORE you are misrepresenting and lying about the BBS-10 seat back you say "Sony BBS-10 BOODO KHAN Body Woofer which functions perfectly as it should". You do NOT have the power amplifier, special not recreatable 12 pin connecting cord that powers up the seat back therefor you CAN NOT test its function. And you are missing the BBS-10 headphones. YOU MUST STATE in auction these items missing and seat back is not operational or able to be tested. Also you show no date of repair or name of facility on repair billing for DD100. Remove my wording from your auction within 12 hours or I will report this to eBay. Your auction is deceptive
John

We've been here before I'm afraid and I hate to say it but I'm pretty sure he can use your words. By default in the non-forum world, authors own the copyright on their own creations. This is an automatic right of the creator of the work, so technically the creator of the post is the copyright owner.  However, by posting on a forum, you would have accepted the terms and conditions when you join a forum that covers this type of publication and what it implies. In posting you are accepting that your creative content (ie your post) will be published by the forum administrator and owner and is pretty much in the public domain.

Now if the seller is describing his item incorrectly then surely this can only come to light when the eventual buyer receives the item and a discrepancy ensues. If as you say the seller has listed his item incorrectly then again it's his problem and he will have to sort this out with the seller.  I'm not sure he will take your words as 'constructive advice'.

I know this isn't what you want to hear John but there isn't much you can or should do here.

Indeed DocP. I really dislike posting pictures of meets and of my personal collections because it is viewable by everyone, this is not a problem per se but for those that do not wish to become members, I find it somewhat uneasy not knowing who is out there looking. Simple solution for me is that there won't be any further pictures of meets etc.

As for the eBay posting issue, contact eBay and tell them about the blatant use of your material and they will likely stop the auction.

Not sure they will if the content was in the public domain, worth a try though.

Thank you AO for clarifying what rights or for most part actual protection of our individual research and exact words copied and pasted into auctions etc.   My primary problem with seller was the clearly apparent use of the BBS-10 body woofer pictured with DD100 to greatly add to value of DD100 when without the Amp, cable and headphones the BBS-10 system will not work with a compete DD100.  His auction clearly inferred this.  Although he states now that seatback does work and tested to be fair he should include in auction that seat will not function at all or power up and can not be used at all with DD100 he is selling unless buyer finds rest of BBS system.

   He has replied to my email which I commend him greatly for being honest and willing to rectify some of my claims and to add proper information to current auction description.  Shall see what he corrects this evening as he stated. 

Here is his reply to me and mine back to him.

John, first let me say that deception is not my goal here.
I will gladly change anything that you feel is encroaching on your intellectual rights.
I used your auction as a template being that I am not nearly as well versed concerning this item as you are, filling in my own details and correcting the grammar as I saw fit -These are not exact words so your claim is not viable from a legal standpoint.
From a person to person standpoint, I can understand your frustration and have no problem modifying the description where applicable.
I normally specialize in guitars and effects and have had people copy my descriptions shamelessly and exactly (and I mean EXACTLY) in the past so I can relate.
I thought I modified my auction enough, including all of my personal details that apply to the items up for sale but I can certainly give it a good re-working once I get home tonight.
As far as the unit functioning perfectly, I have the cable AND the amplification unit with my other body woofer (yes, I have two of these) and I have in fact tested this one -it works PERFECTLY.
So on that point, your judgement is premature.
Good point on the receipt.
I'll tend to that as well.
I hope you find this to be an amicable solution, and I apologize for any grief this has caused you. I'm sure we can call it even now though since you did wrongfully accuse me of being an outright liar!
Take care, and let me know if we're all good after I've tended to the above points.
Thanks.

  I personally believe the dedicated members here that we are Guardians of the Walkman and Boombox as to keeping them alive and working out into the future.  And even more so our combined research establishing a factual and experience based information base on these items and technology that is no longer manufactured and much of the original information has been lost.   We all spend great amounts of time with our passion for these marvels and the significant contribution to society and our personal lives they have brought.  

   I also believe that we should as we can and find out about the use of information that is within this forum that is used without giving specific referenece to source and that as we wrote papers in High School and College you did not PLAGERIZE or exactly copy and use words from other sources.  The facts are used but put into your own words with references given where information was found for personal work.         

my modest opinion is that cut-and-past is now such a common practice that many people do not even perceive it as basically wrong. to me it's not so much a matter of copyright infringment and its legal consequences, as one of ethics. there was study and research behind JohnEdward's post, i.e. intellectual work. therefore, cut-and-past is a form of theft. editing a pre-existing text may put things in order from the legal point of view --although i doubt it; but even when the fact is irrelevant for the law --as it just so happens with public forums-- the moral issue is there to stay.

(i post this comment well aware of the possibility that someone will soon cut-and-paste it in another forum)

  In this instance the buyers of this auction have correct and all the information to make a decision on value and if want to purchase this item.  I have caused this seller even though his intentions as he says were not deception to incorporate ALL of the facts about ALL the items he is selling and that information left OUT of auction that one item can not be used in any way with his DD100 or any other Walkman or sound source without rest of BBS system which as we all know is highly unlikely to be found working and purchased.  The way auction originally presented makes the BBS-10 seat back appear a highly valuable usable accessory to the DD100 when in FACT as he is selling it  is not.   I also rightfully have notified a person that they if use my exact words and even font/layout that proper reference of source should be given.

NOTE : I do not believe just saying "from stereo2go.com" is correct legal way of reference.  More should be discussed on this.  My understanding is the complete link to exact page used and members name given and date of topic/post should be given????

I am sure all of us would find it distasteful and wrong for others to use so much of our EXACT and I repeat EXACT own words just copied pasted into something without proper source referencing information included.  Fine use the facts and re write them from our work into your own words as this seller has agreed to do or do proper references.

   Yes the public domain is a wonderful powerful tool for all humanity.  Yet this crosses into gray areas in HOW my and S2G was used in the public domain.  I wonder if when a person joins that the FIRST rule at top states some protection of the information in our forum if used outside the forum and IF USED what is proper references to be given.  I am no lawyer and do not know what words may best be used but I believe although we are a public domain entity others can not just copy and paste our words into auctions etc.    Even in public domain look at old encyclopedias'( oh god now am showing my age) at end of information on topic was exhaustive references properly notated.  I remember being taught in High School the proper format to state use of sources in research papers etc. which included a lot of detail.  Can we not find some way of putting non using visitors and new members at notice of this.  

   In the end the only problem any of us really have is not with say another site or forum using information or photos for the enjoyment or information use of others IT IS THE USE IN SELLING which is good when it helps seller include factual information and history on Walkman or Boomboxes but Offensive and Wrong to us when presented in way that makes items appear to be or function not as they actually will or do.   Yes it is the BUYER BEWARE statement is a truth but think what a MUCH better world this would be if sellers totally expressed any deficiencies in auction and made factual statements about function/condition.  The dedicated members here all do this.  I see nothing wrong with trying to make the world a little better place by doing a little police work so to say and when auctions use our information in a wrongful way and much MORE SO WHEN clearly information is omitted to make item sell for more money we can speak up as I did with Shadowboxer99.  

NO we cannot watch over all auctions or fix problem of so many persons willing to outright lie or purposefully omit information but we can make some effort to help this problem be less by being wise about our information and forum use by others.

  I personally would be thankful very much to any person who on a auction I was considering bidding did bring to light to seller and if needed eBay information that would save me from receiving item that did not work as presented or other problems that are much more difficult to settle through eBay although they can than for me to know facts as buyer and just decide I am not bidding on this item.   

  Very well stated and I agree samovar !  Grin like what you added at end about possibility of someone soon to cut and paste it in another forum.  YET this type of use of information is what helps knowledge be shared to world etc.  Using information in auctions is problem not shared info on net.  Again to me its the use of this information in deceptive selling auctions which is becoming more rampant and more the reason eBay has had to go to such lengths to protect the BUYER at a cost of as we all know as sellers nearly holding us hostage to the buyer even when we have presented a well documented truthful WITH any known problems stated clearly and clear photographs.   I dont know the solution but I know what I did in this instance with  above ebay seller was " THE RIGHT THING TO DO".   I know that others may have differences of opinions and that's what makes us the human race.   

     It really is a MORAL ISSUE and sadly too many "sellers" have little of no morals and  only belief held is GREED IS GOOD including lying or omission of information. Is that not why our society creates LAWS to protect people?  I am thankful that still much or world no matter where we live believes in a basic truth of right and wrong.  Maybe nothing can be done but I did what was right for me.

I would also note sorry being long winded that my copy and pasting of sellers email response to me is properly allowed in that I have noted who he is and on what site also  on his auction his reply is VISIBLE to public in Questions area.

Dear John, I'm sad to see how many people copies other's work nowadays in the Internet. I suffered this often; not only with this my passion but also with my other work.

As far as I know, the copyright law is country-dependent, and in this case the seller's country is the one to apply. In my country, he's doing nothing illegal, but in my opinion he doing some bad things.

I don't care if someone copies my texts or photos, whenever:

- they are not making money (directly or indirectly with advertising in their website) with it

- they doesn't modify it

- they clearly credits me.

Although, I always prefer to simply link.

In this case, he is sharing your text and pointing to the original site, but doesn't credit you and didn't insert a link. It's bad, but not SO bad IMHO.

What's really bad is that he is describing an incomplete and obviously non-working BBS-10 as it were complete and working, and he is taking profit from your texts to help him selling, because he copied the text but not your complete article. If he would do it, then any smart buyer could realize that the item is incomplete... but now if a buyer doesn't search over the Internet to find your article himself he could end with an dead BBS-10. That's what is BAD. Well, that's my personal opinion.

I contacted him to ask for the cable and the amplifier (casually I'm searching for the missing cable, as you know John), but he didn't reply yet.

i think that the moral issue is relevant when there's something valuable at stake: for instance, intellectual work used without giving credits. especially when somebody is doing so in order to maximize selling opportunities. it goes without saying that i don't care if somebody makes cut-and-paste of my previous post without giving any credit to me

on a more serious note, the issue is complex and controversial, so i'll just scratch the surface with two quick observations.

1. i agree on AO's note on the many positive aspects of the public domain format. it is democratic and undoubtedly it helps sharing knowledge among people. yet these same plusses may have --often inadvertently-- negative side-effects. one example for all: wikipedia. a wonderful project, yet so full of gross mistakes that, repeated time and again, involuntarily spread misleading information.

2. we are flooded by information, and we can't verify it all. very often this is not so important, but at times it may become decisive, as misleading --or plainly false-- information is dangerous. to stay with the ebay example: good verified info may help us spend well our money. bad info... well, you know.

hence a second nuance of the ethical issue: if we like the idea of sharing information in the public domain, we should try to be as honest and accurate as possible. in a nutshell, this is the way i see it: if we take care of ethics, good information will take care of us, as well as of itself.

by the way, plagiarism is as old and widespread as air earth fire and water. german education minister annette schavan has recently been accused of having copied part of her ph. dissertation--the second case in two years in angela merkel's government. and in the xix century graham bell copied antonio meucci's idea in such a clever way that he has been credited with the invention of the telephone ever since. the history of mankind is a history of theft

I recently seen images on the web that I took of graffitti in the eighties on other peoples
Websites stolen from my flickr account,
I wish had watermarked them,I've since took them down buts its too late
They are out there.
Any decent boombox images  I post in future will have my  mascot in the pic.