OT:Ebay
celtex
--
If you don't live for something...
You die for nothing...
Mr. Jaggers
> When did make PayPal mandatory? I missed that entirely.
A couple of months ago. I think you are still allowed to negotiate
privately with the seller to arrange an alternative means of payment, but I
believe you can't state that in the auction. There was considerable
discussion in these pages when the ruling came down.
James
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gmqbc...@enews5.newsguy.com...
Many of sellers in the auctions I read still state in their text that they
will accept checks, money orders, and PayPal, so I guess eBay is living with
that. Otherwise, although I always had selected PayPal, checks, and money
orders in the "payments accepted" part of my Vendio auction software, only
PayPal appeared in my auction once the "prohibition" became in force. I
presume buyer and seller can still agree on whatever kind of payment they
want. Ebay's checkout process apparently only supports PayPal.
Nick Knight
>Many of sellers in the auctions I read still state in their text that they
>will accept checks, money orders, and PayPal, so I guess eBay is living
>with that. Otherwise, although I always had selected PayPal, checks, and
>money orders in the "payments accepted" part of my Vendio auction
>software, only PayPal appeared in my auction once the "prohibition" became
>in force. I presume buyer and seller can still agree on whatever kind of
>payment they want. Ebay's checkout process apparently only supports
>PayPal.
I'm on the eBay developers mailing list. Last newsletter mentioned that
they will be enabling their text scanner software soon to auto-detect
descriptions offering other payment methods. It's claimed to be a fairly
smart scanner, looking for word combinations. The example given was that
the simple word "check", alone in a description would not trigger a problem
notification. "Personal check" would.
It's coming. Of course, there will probably always be clever ways to trick
the robots. Well, it will at least be fun trying :)
Nick
celtex
news:gmqbc...@enews5.newsguy.com...
behind on info thanks all for response.
Bruce Remick
"Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
news:4990d443$1$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net...
Interesting. One would hope that eBay would never be able to detect or
control what goes on between a buyer and seller after an auction, as long as
the buyer doesn't use eBay's internal message system to make other payment
arrangements. With most bidders willing to use PayPal and all sellers
forced to accept it, the whole thing may become a non-issue.
Aladdin Sane
"Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> wrote in message
news:4990d443$1$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net...>
> they will be enabling their text scanner software soon to auto-detect
> descriptions offering other payment methods. It's claimed to be a fairly
> smart scanner, looking for word combinations. The example given was that
> the simple word "check", alone in a description would not trigger a
> problem
> notification. "Personal check" would.
>
> It's coming. Of course, there will probably always be clever ways to
> trick
> the robots. Well, it will at least be fun trying :)
>
> Nick
soon you can pay by Person L Chec|<
mazorj
"Aladdin Sane" <jmaz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s5GdnciM6f1tbg3U...@giganews.com...
"A check of the personal variety is welcome" - if the 'bot is smart
but not smart enough, it will white list "check of" as valid, as in "a
check of my inventory shows that I have none in stock". "Personal" is
buried in a similarly innocuous context. Eventually, eBay will twig
to that one but it will be an endless arms race with clever sellers
managing to stay one step ahead (assuming they don't get caught and
booted out).
Peter
As I read the stricture, the seller is not suppose to offer or
encourage the use of anything but Paypal. I see many auctions that
are sufficiently clear that checks are OK. When in doubt I ask and
about the same number as before agree to take a check. Normally, I
will not deal with anyone who doesn't take a check.
gogu
news:4990d443$1$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net...
Excuse my European "ignorance" but I have always thought that US was the
Mecca of free enterprise, the heaven of anti-monopole practises!
So I don't understand how a "supervising company" (that's eBay) can
*dictate* the way one of the parts in a transaction will be paid?!
More, how legal it is to *oblige* two parts (buyer and seller) to use a
company controlled by *you* to make payment!
Isn't it a monopole and a violation of the laws of free competition?!.
How eBay can force me (the buyer) to accept Paypal if I am willing to take
the "risk" and accept other forms of payment, too?...
Is this country turning slowly in some kind of USSR?;-)
rgrds
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
B.J.
>
> Interesting. One would hope that eBay would never be able to detect or
> control what goes on between a buyer and seller after an auction, as long as
> the buyer doesn't use eBay's internal message system to make other payment
> arrangements. With most bidders willing to use PayPal and all sellers
> forced to accept it, the whole thing may become a non-issue.
eBay can't tell what communication (or financial transactions) occur
outside of eBay and PayPal, but they can tell whether a PayPal
transaction is made between the buyer and seller. If the auction
closes at $1000, positive feedback is left both ways, and there is no
PayPal transaction between the buyer and seller then something funny
is going on.
B.J.
Bruce Remick
"B.J." <bjher...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10b9d353-2f36-45dc...@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
B.J.
________________
That was what I was thinking could happen, too, and maybe that's what they
have in mind. After reading these posts of course.
Bruce Remick
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Gc7kl.2026$N02....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
But then sellers may be ripe fodder for the ever-present citizen PayPal
Police who will rat on them to eBay just for the pleasure of telling others
how clever and important they are.
celtex
news:gmrom6$13cv$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>Ο "Nick Knight" <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
>news:4990d443$1$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net...
>
>> In <Wb4kl.5922$_A2....@newsfe22.iad>, on 02/09/2009
>> at 07:51 PM, "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> said:
<snip>
> Excuse my European "ignorance" but I have always thought that US was the
> Mecca of free enterprise, the heaven of anti-monopole practises!
>
> So I don't understand how a "supervising company" (that's eBay) can
> *dictate* the way one of the parts in a transaction will be paid?!
>
> More, how legal it is to *oblige* two parts (buyer and seller) to use a
> company controlled by *you* to make payment!
>
> Isn't it a monopole and a violation of the laws of free competition?!.
>
> How eBay can force me (the buyer) to accept Paypal if I am willing to take
> the "risk" and accept other forms of payment, too?...
>
> Is this country turning slowly in some kind of USSR?;-)
>
> rgrds
>
> --
Not too slowly now! It is a ever increasing slide downhill in the god ole
USofA!
Bruce Remick
"gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gmrom6$13cv$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
That's the goal, but we're hardly the "Mecca". We try though and if enough
people complain, corrections are occasionally made, albeit too late in some
cases.
>
> So I don't understand how a "supervising company" (that's eBay) can
> *dictate* the way one of the parts in a transaction will be paid?!
Easy to understand. It's in their "rules". If you don't agree with those
rules, you don't have to play. Many apparently have opted not to play
anymore.
>
> More, how legal it is to *oblige* two parts (buyer and seller) to use a
> company controlled by *you* to make payment!
No one seems to have filed a serious lawsuit yet, so the jury is still out.
>
> Isn't it a monopole and a violation of the laws of free competition?!.
Seems to be. But who is PayPal competing with? The banks? The post
office?
>
> How eBay can force me (the buyer) to accept Paypal if I am willing to take
> the "risk" and accept other forms of payment, too?...
They can't really force you. But they can state their policies and can cite
you if they catch you ignoring them. Few seem to agree with those policies
lately, but eBay is still the only serious game in town.
>
> Is this country turning slowly in some kind of USSR?;-)
Don't tell me that the former USSR was insisting on PayPal-only, too!
Mr. Jaggers
Eh? First of all, eBay is a non-essential service, and will not likely
attract the attention of Legislators bent on re-election. Politicians see
painting themselves as watchdogs of utilities and oil companies as a much
better way to become folk heroes.
Second, what eBay is doing is typical of a free, competitive, capitalistic
business enterprise. If you believe it is unethical, bullying, and
monopolistic, you are welcome to hold those views, but for the government to
step in and restrict it would indeed move us one step in the direction of
the USSR. If you think eBay is evil, you should see what some of our mass
retailers do to their suppliers in the name of free enterprise.
For the longest time, the people who refused to make PayPal available were
the ones who seemed to think that they should not incur any costs of doing
business. Read their ad copy, go back and listen to some of them whine in
these pages about how PayPal done 'em wrong by, OMG, actually charging them
for performing a financial service, for facilitating their business, for
increasing the potential size of their clientele. I challenge you to find
any brick-and-mortar business enterprise that expects to retain every penny
that lands in its cash registers.
In my view, eBay's new policy of requiring acceptance of PayPal is a great
boon to the buyers, a/k/a consumers. If I never have to stand in line at
the post office to buy a money order again, it will be ever so much too
soon.
James
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
I do wonder how many people who have used eBay for business sales and who
work with a small profit margin (if that's possible in an auction), have
bailed out now because of the bite PayPal takes out of their sales, along
with the various eBay fees. Maybe that's offset by more customers? As an
occasional seller, I don't get my money much faster with PayPal than I did
with checks and MO's. If a buyer waits a few days to send me a PayPal
payment, I then have to transfer it to my bank account and wait three or
four days for the amount to be accessible. I've had my money in hand from a
check or MO in the same time or less, without paying a percentage either.
The only inconvenience is having to go to the drive-in window to cash the
paper, but not if I can get my wife to do it.
PC
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6%hkl.4492$rt3....@newsfe15.iad...
>
> The only inconvenience is having to go to the drive-in window to cash
I go inside so one of the "hotties" can assist me.
Mr. Jaggers
My thoughts are, "Thank God and Greyhound, they're gone." I agree, I don't
understand how one can talk profit margins, at least predictable ones, when
eBay is the venue.
Maybe that's offset
> by more customers? As an occasional seller, I don't get my money
> much faster with PayPal than I did with checks and MO's.
You would if I were the buyer. I pay immediately. I do that not for the
seller, but for me. I figure if the seller has my payment in hand, he is
obligated to ship promptly.
If a buyer
> waits a few days to send me a PayPal payment, I th 14
en have to transfer
> it to my bank account and wait three or four days for the amount to
> be accessible. I've had my money in hand from a check or MO in the
> same time or less, without paying a percentage either. The only
> inconvenience is having to go to the drive-in window to cash the
> paper, but not if I can get my wife to do it.
Tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.
James
Bruce Remick
"PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
news:gmsb5q$adf$1...@news.motzarella.org...
You have hotties in your bank? All I can see is an vague silhouette through
my anti-glare drive-in widow. Maybe I'll have to go inside some time. But
then I wouldn't know what to do if I did see a hottie, and would be afraid
my reaction might match some profile they watch out for. I did hear from my
wife that about a year ago our bank had a WalMart greeter-type young lady
standing there after you walked in who would ask if she could help you.
Glad I missed that. I'm afraid of what I might have said.
gogu
news:eAhkl.6610$_A2....@newsfe22.iad...
>
> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gmrom6$13cv$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>> Mecca of free enterprise, the heaven of anti-monopole practises!
> That's the goal, but we're hardly the "Mecca". We try though and if
> enough people complain, corrections are occasionally made, albeit too late
> in some cases.
I was thinking that US has dealt with such "polices" decades ago!
>> So I don't understand how a "supervising company" (that's eBay) can
>> *dictate* the way one of the parts in a transaction will be paid?!
> Easy to understand. It's in their "rules". If you don't agree with those
> rules, you don't have to play. Many apparently have opted not to play
> anymore.
I beg to differ!
Let's make a scenario: in the above line of logic, one shopkeepr who
dislikes homosexuals/black people/Jews/Greeks/Orthodox/etc, can not admit
them in his shop.
"His business, his rules"!
Well, I don't think so!
IMHO, other that what is called "good business ethics" there are rules/laws
in every country against such policies and I can't believe that in the USofA
there are no such laws!
For example, Microsoft was forced to make changes regarding its I.E in the
Windows, just because the court decided that their practices are
constituting a monopole.
To me their practises are no worse than eBay's practises in this matter.
>> More, how legal it is to *oblige* two parts (buyer and seller) to use a
>> company controlled by *you* to make payment!
> No one seems to have filed a serious lawsuit yet, so the jury is still
> out.
Given the fact that eBay is:
1) a quite big and known company
2) not in its first "mistake" in the field
I wonder why a prosecutor is not having a look at their practises?
I am sure that in the US, too, a prosecutor can start an investigation even
if there is not a formal complain by someone...
>> Isn't it a monopole and a violation of the laws of free competition?!.
> Seems to be. But who is PayPal competing with? The banks? The post
> office?
All the above and some other institutions maybe.
The giant of Microsoft was forced to abandon some similar policies and with
eBay the same thing is kosher?!
>> How eBay can force me (the buyer) to accept Paypal if I am willing to
>> take the "risk" and accept other forms of payment, too?...
> They can't really force you. But they can state their policies and can
> cite you if they catch you ignoring them.
To my book this is called "enforcing special rules".
> Few seem to agree with those policies lately, but eBay is still the only
> serious game in town.
And that's why exactly AFAIK there are some draconic anti-monopole laws in
the US!
Or am I wrong?...
>> Is this country turning slowly in some kind of USSR?;-)
> Don't tell me that the former USSR was insisting on PayPal-only, too!
:-)
I was joking of course my friend;-)
gogu
1) the one with USSR was obviously a joke!
2) I always pay by Paypal because I feel it's the safest way for my
transactions.
3) What I don't like is someone to *enforce* me *his* way(s) of payment
which incidentally are bringing more profit to him!
4) And yes, I still believe this is against some monopole laws you have in
the US, it's just a matter of time for someone to file a complain.
And you can understand it from the simple fact that eBay doesn't dare to
enforce such a policy in its European branches where anti-monopole laws are
enforced with severity (ask Microsoft for that;-)).
rgrds
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
Ο "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:gms8q...@enews5.newsguy.com...
Mr. Jaggers
> James (and excuse me the top-posting):
>
> 1) the one with USSR was obviously a joke!
>
> 2) I always pay by Paypal because I feel it's the safest way for my
> transactions.
>
> 3) What I don't like is someone to *enforce* me *his* way(s) of
> payment which incidentally are bringing more profit to him!
>
> 4) And yes, I still believe this is against some monopole laws you
> have in the US, it's just a matter of time for someone to file a
> complain.
> And you can understand it from the simple fact that eBay doesn't dare
> to enforce such a policy in its European branches where anti-monopole
> laws are enforced with severity (ask Microsoft for that;-)).
You know, I think that before we continue this thread, we need to have the
exact text of eBay policy with regard to payment. I was not able to find it
just now, but perhaps someone else can.
James
gogu
Of course you are right but I thought of it -even- as a general discussion
about monopoles:-)
I had always the greatest esteem for US laws protecting free enterprise and
against monopoles and protectionism and now I am surprised to see an
American company enforcing such practices and nobody protesting against it!
rgrds
PS
Always enjoying a civilized and troll-free exchange of ideas;-)
Mr. Jaggers
Through our history, our laws have not remained monolithic, but have changed
to address issues that arise. Thus, we have seen changes in attitude toward
tariffs, labor unions, and monopolies [the plural of monopoly, by the way, a
monopole being something entirely different 8>)], the pendulum having swung
both ways and back again over the years in each of these areas. This is why
we have courts, inefficient and costly as they are. And we can be sure of
one thing, that whichever side loses a court case will accuse the judges of
being "activists" and "legislating from the bench".
Personally, I would be content to see eBay require PayPal to be made
available, but along with other means of payment, such as money orders,
checks, and bank drafts. But again, I can't speak with certainty that that
isn't indeed the rule, as I can't lay my hands on the text of the policy.
Where's Jim Menning when you need him?
James
gogu
> gogu wrote:
> Personally, I would be content to see eBay require PayPal to be made
> available, but along with other means of payment, such as money orders,
> checks, and bank drafts.
EXACTLY!
Free choice is the key!
rgrds
Jim Menning
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gmsg1...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> But again, I can't speak with certainty that that isn't indeed the rule, as I can't
> lay my hands on the text of the policy. Where's Jim Menning when you need him?
>
> James
>
Ask, and ye shall receive.
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html
And thanks for pointing out the misuse of the word "monopole". I was cringing each
time I saw another poster using it.
Mr. Jaggers
Whew! I'm relieved to see I can still pay for my porn with a money order!
If I interpret this correctly, PayPal is not prescribed, but given as one of
a list of five choices, from which the seller must pick at least one, is
that the way you interpret it?
In any event, this is turning out to be other than most of us appear to
believe. As for me, I've never heard of ProPay, Moneybookers, or Paymate.
Just as a precaution, some time ago you and I found different, and
conflicting sets of rules about some issue that I can't remember right
offhand. Can we safely assume that what you have linked is the one and only
statement on this topic?
Thanks for jumping in, Jim. Now, I'm off for Fermilab to show those plebes
that there really is a magnetic monopole. Got one right here, stuck to the
inside of my lunchbox. Nobel in physics, here I come!
James (but not the Maxwell guy)
Donald Weber
Auctiva newsletter. These posts are the first confirmation I've heard. I
personally prefer PayPal payment but have always accepted Money Orders and
Personal Checks from those that went that way even with the hassle, money
being money. I don't buy eBay's reasons for the change, it's just a way to
increase profits. I'd prefer if they were open about that but I guess it be
easier to find an honest politician then for then to stand up about it.
What it does mean for me is that I have individually open each of my over
400 auctions and change the text to comply with the policy. Oh well, I
needed to do that any way with a lot of those auctions to remove Christmas
promotions from them. Be a good chance to review and liven things up.
Be interesting to see what the next edict from eBay will be.
DNW
Jon Purkey
They could set up some type of scoring system, similar to the
utilities that detect what messages are and are not spam.
Jim Menning
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> Jim Menning wrote:
>> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>> news:gmsg1...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> But again, I can't speak with certainty that that isn't indeed the
>>> rule, as I can't lay my hands on the text of the policy. Where's Jim
>>> Menning when you need him? James
>>>
>>
>> Ask, and ye shall receive.
>>
>> http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html
>>
>> And thanks for pointing out the misuse of the word "monopole". I was
>> cringing each time I saw another poster using it.
>
> Whew! I'm relieved to see I can still pay for my porn with a money order!
>
> If I interpret this correctly, PayPal is not prescribed, but given as one of a list
> of five choices, from which the seller must pick at least one, is that the way you
> interpret it?
That's the way I see it. The experts over at alt.marketing.online.ebay may be able
to give further clarification.
>
> In any event, this is turning out to be other than most of us appear to believe.
> As for me, I've never heard of ProPay, Moneybookers, or Paymate.
>
> Just as a precaution, some time ago you and I found different, and conflicting sets
> of rules about some issue that I can't remember right offhand. Can we safely
> assume that what you have linked is the one and only statement on this topic?
It's the only one that I see in the actual policy pages. When these decisions by
eBay were in the formative stage, there were other options and restrictions. Many of
these could have been found on the eBay General Announcements Board or many of their
own forums at the time they were Beta tested. Then eBay implemented these programs
in Australia and the UK for test drives there prior to bringing them to eBay.com.
What we have on the linked policy page appears to be the latest version of the rules.
>
> Thanks for jumping in, Jim. Now, I'm off for Fermilab to show those plebes that
> there really is a magnetic monopole. Got one right here, stuck to the inside of my
> lunchbox. Nobel in physics, here I come!
Good luck with that!
Jim Menning
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>
>
> Just as a precaution, some time ago you and I found different, and conflicting sets
> of rules about some issue that I can't remember right offhand. Can we safely
> assume that what you have linked is the one and only statement on this topic?
I just found a separate reference on the Seller's Rules page, linking directly to the
policy I linked to earlier.
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/seller-rules-overview.html
Jim Menning
"Donald Weber" <dwe...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9KWdnb2CwqgCQwzU...@earthlink.com...
To be aware of any significant eBay or eBay related PayPal changes, you need to read
their General Announcements Board faithfully. They actually do a very good job of
informing their users, if the users only take the time to keep up to date. I've
subscribed to these, so all new announcements appear on my "My eBay" page."
You can view them directly here: http://www2.ebay.com/aw/marketing.shtml
Mr. Jaggers
Would you say then that PayPal becomes the de facto requirement, as the
other items in the list are either unknown to most buyers (I assume this,
based on my own ignorance of them, not fair, perhaps), or less desirable,
such as credit cards?
James
gogu
news:gmsm1...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Jim Menning wrote:
>> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>> news:gmsg1...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> But again, I can't speak with certainty that that isn't indeed the
>>> rule, as I can't lay my hands on the text of the policy. Where's Jim
>>> Menning when you need him? James
>> Ask, and ye shall receive.
>>
>> http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html
>>
>> And thanks for pointing out the misuse of the word "monopole". I was
>> cringing each time I saw another poster using it.
> Whew! I'm relieved to see I can still pay for my porn with a money order!
>
> If I interpret this correctly, PayPal is not prescribed, but given as one
> of a list of five choices, from which the seller must pick at least one,
> is that the way you interpret it?
That's much better!
mazorj
"gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> James (and excuse me the top-posting):
>
> 1) the one with USSR was obviously a joke!
>
> 2) I always pay by Paypal because I feel it's the safest way for my
> transactions.
>
> 3) What I don't like is someone to *enforce* me *his* way(s) of
> payment which incidentally are bringing more profit to him!
>
> 4) And yes, I still believe this is against some monopole laws you
> have in the US, it's just a matter of time for someone to file a
> complain.
>
> And you can understand it from the simple fact that eBay doesn't
> dare to enforce such a policy in its European branches where
> anti-monopole laws are enforced with severity (ask Microsoft for
> that;-)).
I suspect that a certain amount of animosity toward, and envy of the
"big bad American bully" corporations makes European and other foreign
prosecutors a bit more zealous in playing "Gotcha!" against American
companies than they normally are with their domestic companies.
mazorj
"gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>Ο "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
>news:eAhkl.6610$_A2....@newsfe22.iad...
>>
>> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:gmrom6$13cv$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>>> Excuse my European "ignorance" but I have always thought that US
>>> was the Mecca of free enterprise, the heaven of anti-monopole
>>> practises!
>
>> That's the goal, but we're hardly the "Mecca". We try though and
>> if enough people complain, corrections are occasionally made,
>> albeit too late in some cases.
>
> I was thinking that US has dealt with such "polices" decades ago!
>
>>> So I don't understand how a "supervising company" (that's eBay)
>>> can *dictate* the way one of the parts in a transaction will be
>>> paid?!
>
>> Easy to understand. It's in their "rules". If you don't agree
>> with those rules, you don't have to play. Many apparently have
>> opted not to play anymore.
>
> I beg to differ!
>
> Let's make a scenario: in the above line of logic, one shopkeepr who
> dislikes homosexuals/black people/Jews/Greeks/Orthodox/etc, can not
> admit them in his shop.
>
> "His business, his rules"!
> Well, I don't think so!
That's an apples-and-oranges comparison. You cannot equate
restrictions on forms of payment for business transactions with
restrictions against discrimination. At least not here in the U.S.
> IMHO, other that what is called "good business ethics" there are
> rules/laws in every country against such policies and I can't
> believe that in the USofA there are no such laws!
>
> For example, Microsoft was forced to make changes regarding its I.E
> in the Windows, just because the court decided that their practices
> are constituting a monopole.
>
> To me their practises are no worse than eBay's practises in this
> matter.
You could frame a legal argument that eBay's PayPal policy is a
restraint of trade, along the lines of the now illegal practice of
requiring home buyers to use one specific settlement company. OTOH,
eBay would argue that Microsoft deserved what it got because it
dominates its industry and markets far more thoroughly than eBay and
PayPal do with their share of their markets. PayPal also would argue
that the only people really hurt by the policy are banks and credit
card issuers, and as noted below, who the hell has any sympathy for
them?
Also as noted below, the bottom line is that the eBay/PayPal policy
will continue unless and until someone tests it and wins in a lawsuit.
So your opinion and mine don't count.
>>> More, how legal it is to *oblige* two parts (buyer and seller) to
>>> use a company controlled by *you* to make payment!
>
>> No one seems to have filed a serious lawsuit yet, so the jury is
>> still out.
>
> Given the fact that eBay is:
>
> 1) a quite big and known company
>
> 2) not in its first "mistake" in the field
>
> I wonder why a prosecutor is not having a look at their practises?
>
> I am sure that in the US, too, a prosecutor can start an
> investigation even if there is not a formal complain by someone...
Here in the U.S. there is a company whose business is built around
breaking the law by making unsolicited marketing calls all over the
country to people on the Do Not Call list, to try to sell them credit
relief services. Their existence, identities (they keep changing
names) and practices have been well documented on blog sites and in
thousands of formal complaints to the relevant government agencies. I
sent a complaint to the principal federal agency for this and got a
form letter suggesting that I bring the matter to the attention of my
state attorney general. Nobody wants to do anything about this and
nothing has been done to stop them.
Actions to stop spammers followed the same pattern and even now there
have only been a handful of successful prosecutions of spammers. It's
just too much trouble to take any action as long as the problem is
seen by the enforcers as small potatoes with no big political pay-offs
for them. Nothing will be done until the complaints and publicity
rise to the level where politically the regulators can no longer
afford to ignore it. In my estimation, the PayPal rule is nowhere big
enough to politically mandate an investigation and indictment.
>>> Isn't it a monopole and a violation of the laws of free
>>> competition?!.
>
>> Seems to be. But who is PayPal competing with? The banks? The
>> post office?
>
> All the above and some other institutions maybe.
>
> The giant of Microsoft was forced to abandon some similar policies
> and with eBay the same thing is kosher?!
eBay/PayPal will argue that it's an apples-and-oranges comparison.
>>> How eBay can force me (the buyer) to accept Paypal if I am willing
>>> to take the "risk" and accept other forms of payment, too?...
>
>> They can't really force you. But they can state their policies and
>> can cite you if they catch you ignoring them.
>
> To my book this is called "enforcing special rules".
There is nothing inherently illegal about "enforcing special rules."
Businesses do it all the time. For example, most companies have a
clearly stated rule against sending cash in the mail for your bill
payments despite the laws about legal tender.
>> Few seem to agree with those policies lately, but eBay is still the
>> only serious game in town.
>
> And that's why exactly AFAIK there are some draconic anti-monopole
> laws in the US!
>
> Or am I wrong?...
>
>>> Is this country turning slowly in some kind of USSR?;-)
>
>> Don't tell me that the former USSR was insisting on PayPal-only,
>> too!
>
> :-)
>
> I was joking of course my friend;-)
As the old show business saying goes, if you have to explain it, it
bombed as a joke.
Jim Menning
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Only for the individual.
You may have noticed that eBay has been gearing towards an increased presence of more
commercial retailers rather than the common person looking to sell off a few excess
items from around the house.
It appears to me that the majority of eBay's current listings are from businesses,
many of which have more than 1,000 active listings at any time. Most of them have a
credit card service already, and are exempt from the PayPal requirement. Even so, it
appears that most of them also take PayPal.
I think eBay has it right, that the majority of buyers want the quick and safe way of
making payments that PayPal affords. Any other way creates more hassle, more delays
in getting their items, and more problem resolution difficulties. And if eBay
doesn't make it comfortable for the buyers, the sellers will suffer. Forcing the
private seller to take PayPal is an easy way of making the marketplace safer for the
buyers.
Mr. Jaggers
To that I shall say, "Amen!"
James
Jim Menning
"gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gmrom6$13cv$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>
> How eBay can force me (the buyer) to accept Paypal if I am willing to take the
> "risk" and accept other forms of payment, too?...
>
>
I'm assuming you meant "seller". Buyers don't accept payments.
EBay requires that sellers use one of several choices that offer the buyer an easy
means of remediation if they are victimized.
Jim Menning
"gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> And you can understand it from the simple fact that eBay doesn't dare to enforce
> such a policy in its European branches where anti-monopole laws are enforced with
> severity (ask Microsoft for that;-)).
>
>
>
Look again. It is part of the User Agreement terms in many places other than the US,
including Europe. The User Agreement requires you follow their policies. Here is
the payments policy for the UK:
http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html
You will see it does include PayPal as one of the options required for accepting
payments.
You might also note that is even more restrictive than the US policy in some
respects. "Sellers who list in certain categories or transactions may additionally
be required to offer PayPal as the only payment method offered on a listing, and this
will be messaged accordingly within the listing flows. "
If you are not in the UK, you may want to check the accepted payment policy for your
own locality.
mazorj
>
> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Gc7kl.2026$N02....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> PayPal Police who will rat on them to eBay just for the pleasure of
> telling others how clever and important they are.
Oy, I forgot that the PayPal lackeys now are minions of the eBay
lackeys.
Still, they'd have to run routines to match up all your eBay sales
with all your PayPal revenue receipts and flag the discrepancies.
There are costs involved but it's not rocket science and I wouldn't
put it past those weasels to spend $10 to catch every $1 in sales that
aren't consummated via PayPal.
However, Jim Menning's clarifications may have made these brooding
speculations moot.
mazorj
"Jon Purkey" <room32...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6bn3p4ptr4j5hc7sm...@4ax.com...
Yeah, and we all know how well those work!
Jim Menning
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> Bruce Remick wrote:
>
>
> As an occasional seller, I don't get my money
>> much faster with PayPal than I did with checks and MO's.
>
> You would if I were the buyer. I pay immediately. I do that not for the seller,
> but for me. I figure if the seller has my payment in hand, he is obligated to ship
> promptly.
>
The speed in which you pay isn't the only part of the equation. EBay payments
through PayPal for some have a waiting period now before the seller has unrestricted
access to the funds.
See the PayPal User Agreement section 10.4.
https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/UserAgreement/ua/USUA-outside#biz-policy
"10.4 eBay Item Hold. PayPal, in its sole discretion, may place a hold on a payment
you receive for an eBay transaction when PayPal believes there may be a high level of
risk associated with the transaction. If PayPal places a hold on your payment, it
will show as "pending" in your PayPal Account.
a. Release of eBay item hold. PayPal will release the eBay item hold after 21 days
unless you receive a Dispute, Claim, Chargeback, or Reversal on the transaction
subject to the hold. PayPal may release the hold earlier if either of the following
applies:
The buyer leaves positive feedback on eBay, or (ii) PayPal can confirm delivery.
PayPal will confirm delivery if you use USPS, UPS or FedEx to ship the item and (i)
use PayPal shipping labels, or (ii) upload tracking information to PayPal via the
transaction details page. This applies to US domestic transactions only.
b. Additional hold period. If you receive a Dispute, Claim, Chargeback, or Reversal
on the transaction subject to the eBay item hold, PayPal may hold the payment in your
Account until the matter is resolved pursuant to this Agreement."
Mr. Jaggers
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> news:gmscc...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Bruce Remick wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> As an occasional seller, I don't get my money
>>> much faster with PayPal than I did with checks and MO's.
>>
>> You would if I were the buyer. I pay immediately. I do that not
>> for the seller, but for me. I figure if the seller has my payment
>> in hand, he is obligated to ship promptly.
>>
>
> The speed in which you pay isn't the only part of the equation. EBay
> payments through PayPal for some have a waiting period now before the
> seller has unrestricted access to the funds.
My reputation as a buyer is impeccable, which is evident to any seller
willing to check my feedback. Therefore, in my case, and in my view, the
speed in which I pay is indeed the only part of the equation.
James
Jim Menning
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
No offense Mr. J. I would state the same for myself.
However my post was to address your response to Bruce. Even if paid by PayPal
immediately, he may not have the actual money for weeks. It's that part of the
equation that isn't immediate.
Mr. Jaggers
No offense taken, Mr. M. 8>)
But if a seller gets a message of funds withholding from PayPal, shouldn't
it be easy for him to figure out why, based on available feedback, and then
he can make a decision on timeliness of shipping? Certainly it can't be
related to good looks, or I'd have to retract my previous statement.
James
PC
"Jim Menning" <jmenni...@new.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gmsrkn$mof$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
> To be aware of any significant eBay or eBay related PayPal changes, you
> need to read their General Announcements Board faithfully. They actually
> do a very good job of informing their users, if the users only take the
> time to keep up to date. I've subscribed to these, so all new
> announcements appear on my "My eBay" page."
>
> You can view them directly here: http://www2.ebay.com/aw/marketing.shtml
>
I just added to my RSS reader. No more sneaking in any more rate changes
without me seeing it. ;-)
PC
>
>
> I think eBay has it right, that the majority of buyers want the quick and
> safe way of making payments that PayPal affords. Any other way creates
> more hassle, more delays in getting their items, and more problem
> resolution difficulties. And if eBay doesn't make it comfortable for the
> buyers, the sellers will suffer. Forcing the private seller to take
> PayPal is an easy way of making the marketplace safer for the buyers.
>
So in order to make it safe the buyers must be protected from even
themselves...
Jim Menning
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
I would think any seller who has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong would
have no fear of shipping immediately. The hold on the funds is only a buyer
protection, not for the seller's benefit. Therefore the buyer's feedback should not
cause any hold to be initiated.
Jim Menning
"PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message news:gmt68n$3oc$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Remember postal rate changes take place in May. We can't stop those either.
Mr. Jaggers
I'm having trouble imagining what a buyer would need protection from that
would trigger withholding of funds from the seller.
James
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
For sellers who insist on accepting checks and money orders in addition to
PayPal, the option here would seem to be to list that proof set in one of
the permitted categories like Motors > Parts & Accessories > Engines or
Adult Only. But since this is such an obvious loophole, I suppose there's a
clear rule preventing that, too.
Jim Menning
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
From previously seeing this discussed on the eBay boards it seems that the hold is
often placed when the seller has ratings below 4.1 in any of the individual feedback
categories. That's because the seller's performance is in question. It also is
presumably used in certain categories of items that have been historically
problematic, although I can't think of any offhand. Perhaps when buying coins from
China would qualify?
Jim Menning
Of course eBay has a policy preventing that.
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/search-manipulation.html
"Activities that are not permitted include:" "Listing an item in a category that is
not representative of the item being sold, or listing an item outside of a required
category. "
Bruce Remick
I think you're right.
Bruce Remick
This is the case with all of the PayPal payments I receive. It is typically
3-4 days after I transfer a payment to my bank account that I can access the
money. I usually ship out an item immediately and often the bidder receives
his item before I can use the money he sent. Nothing I can't live with.
Mr. Jaggers
Oh, I do hope so!
James
Mr. Jaggers
Sheesh, you should see the crap that is listed in U.S. Colonials and
Canadian Misc. That policy sure as H is not enforced.
James
Bruce Remick
Okay then, just let 'em dare to question my Lady Godiva Conder Token or 1916
SL Quarter auction submitted in the Adults Only category. ;>)
Jim Menning
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Have you noticed this is only from a few sellers, or is it widespread there? I don't
peruse those particular categories.
EBay only appears to hunt down violations once enough complaints have been made.
There is a "report" link at the bottom of every auction listing. Maybe more policy
violation reports in those categories would get better enforcement. If a seller gets
nailed a few times they will probably end up on a watch list by eBay, which may be
part of Frank's problems there.
If it's widespread, you can alert eBay of the problem, and maybe they will redefine
the categories to make them more specific.
Jim Menning
It's all in the eye of the beholder. Pornography or art?
Mr. Jaggers
Makes sense to me, but there's only so much time...
James
Jim Menning
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
The sellers that really annoy me are the ones that do the keyword spamming by listing
in each of their descriptions the items that are in all their other auctions. If
they waste my time often enough that way when I'm doing my regular searches, I report
their auctions and get them removed. Usually when they relist their items, they've
ended that practice.
gogu
news:5Rmkl.37$g31...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> "His business, his rules"!
>> Well, I don't think so!
> That's an apples-and-oranges comparison. You cannot equate restrictions
> on forms of payment for business transactions with restrictions against
> discrimination.
To me it is quite the same thing.
But again what I believe is not necessarily what eventually a court of law
will believe...
> At least not here in the U.S.
Exactly!
In many -if not most- European countries you are not allowed for instance to
ask from your clients to pay you with let's say bills not greater than 50
euros!
Or with small change!
In these countries you can go and pay with a 500 euro bill and the
shopkeeper has no right to reject it.
If he does such a thing, he may face the law.
So yes, different countries, different laws and that's exactly why I have
started my first posting in this thread saying "...Excuse my European
"ignorance"...".
>> For example, Microsoft was forced to make changes regarding its I.E in
>> the Windows, just because the court decided that their practices are
>> constituting a monopole.
>>
>> To me their practises are no worse than eBay's practises in this matter.
> You could frame a legal argument that eBay's PayPal policy is a restraint
> of trade, along the lines of the now illegal practice of requiring home
> buyers to use one specific settlement company.
Thai's right.
> OTOH, eBay would argue that Microsoft deserved what it got because it
> dominates its industry and markets far more thoroughly than eBay and
> PayPal do with their share of their markets.
???
IIRC Microsoft *today* has about 80% of the browsers pie, while eBay has
around 90% of the on-line auctions!
I think that eBay dominates more than Microsoft its respective market.
> PayPal also would argue that the only people really hurt by the policy
> are banks and credit card issuers, and as noted below, who the hell has
> any sympathy for them?
True.
But one thing is our personal feelings and another thing is The law...
> Also as noted below, the bottom line is that the eBay/PayPal policy will
> continue unless and until someone tests it and wins in a lawsuit.
That's what I said.
> So your opinion and mine don't count.
Absolutely, we are just chatting here;-)
> It's just too much trouble to take any action as long as the problem is
> seen by the enforcers as small potatoes with no big political pay-offs for
> them.
Here lies the problem and not only in the USoA...
> Nothing will be done until the complaints and publicity rise to the level
> where politically the regulators can no longer afford to ignore it.
True.
>> The giant of Microsoft was forced to abandon some similar policies and
>> with eBay the same thing is kosher?!
> eBay/PayPal will argue that it's an apples-and-oranges comparison.
eBay/PayPal can argue as long as they want but we are free to express our
opinion:-)
>> To my book this is called "enforcing special rules".
> There is nothing inherently illegal about "enforcing special rules."
Let me then rephrase: "enforcing special, un-ethical, monopoly, etc
rules";-)
> Businesses do it all the time.
And they are punished all the time.
When caught...
> For example, most companies have a clearly stated rule against sending
> cash in the mail for your bill payments despite the laws about legal
> tender.
Banks here in Europe have many rules in their credit cards contracts that
are illegal.
We all sign such contracts until someone files a formal complaint or the
Banks Ombudsman gets aware of such rules and intervenes...
Banks are fined, illegal rules disappear but they are usually replaced by
something different but again against bank's clients;-)
I see it as a kind of "cops and thieves" situation.
>>> Don't tell me that the former USSR was insisting on PayPal-only, too!
>> :-)
>>
>> I was joking of course my friend;-)
> As the old show business saying goes, if you have to explain it, it bombed
> as a joke.
Judging by Bruce's answer I consider he got it very well for what it was;-)
rgrds
--
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure
in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi
puttane! F.d.A
Coins, travels and more:
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb120/golanule/
http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html
gogu
>
> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> James (and excuse me the top-posting):
>>
>> 1) the one with USSR was obviously a joke!
>>
>> 2) I always pay by Paypal because I feel it's the safest way for my
>> transactions.
>>
>> 3) What I don't like is someone to *enforce* me *his* way(s) of payment
>> which incidentally are bringing more profit to him!
>>
>> 4) And yes, I still believe this is against some monopole laws you have
>> in the US, it's just a matter of time for someone to file a complain.
>>
>> And you can understand it from the simple fact that eBay doesn't dare to
>> enforce such a policy in its European branches where anti-monopole laws
>> are enforced with severity (ask Microsoft for that;-)).
> I suspect that a certain amount of animosity toward, and envy of the "big
> bad American bully" corporations makes European and other foreign
> prosecutors a bit more zealous in playing "Gotcha!" against American
> companies than they normally are with their domestic companies.
Well, I don't think so, since Microsoft had *exactly* the same problems in
the...USoA!
I think that prosecutors in both shores of the Atlantic ocean see the same
way a problem that some of us, common mortals, can't see...
gogu
news:gmt05p$t99$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gmsd1g$2s5f$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>>
>>
>> enforce such a policy in its European branches where anti-monopole laws
>> are enforced with severity (ask Microsoft for that;-)).
> Look again. It is part of the User Agreement terms in many places other
> than the US, including Europe. The User Agreement requires you follow
> their policies. Here is the payments policy for the UK:
>
> http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html
>
> You will see it does include PayPal as one of the options required for
> accepting payments.
What I said is that in the EU ebay is not allowed to *enforce* Paypal as the
*sole* way of payment!
"...eBay requires all sellers listing on eBay.co.uk to accept PayPal in
their listings...".
"...In most cases, other additional payments options, which are currently
permitted onsite, may also be provided...".
As I understand it you are forced to accept Paypal as a form of payment but
you are *not* limited to offer *only* this way of payment!
But again I may be wrong...
Of course there are some exceptions (questionably how legal they are in the
EU...):
"...Sellers who list in certain categories or transactions may additionally
be required to offer PayPal as the only payment method offered on a
listing...".
rgrds
PS
The German eBay must be the most "anti-monopole" one;-)
If you visit it you'll see that too many sellers do not accept Paypal as
form of payment!
gogu
>
> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>
>> How eBay can force me (the buyer) to accept Paypal if I am willing to
>> take the "risk" and accept other forms of payment, too?...
> I'm assuming you meant "seller". Buyers don't accept payments.
Well, my ^&%$*@ English;-)
No, I was talking about buyers but I wanted to write "...accept Paypal as a
form of payment...", "accept" in the meaning of accepting it as a form of
payment towards the seller..
> EBay requires that sellers use one of several choices that offer the buyer
> an easy means of remediation if they are victimized.
So eBay is not enforcing Paypal as the *only* form of payment?!
Because that's what I understood!
rgrds
PC
"gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>Ο "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
>news:5Rmkl.37$g31...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>
>> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:gmsd0a$2s3t$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>>> "His business, his rules"!
>>> Well, I don't think so!
>
>
>> That's an apples-and-oranges comparison. You cannot equate restrictions
>> on forms of payment for business transactions with restrictions against
>> discrimination.
>
> To me it is quite the same thing.
> But again what I believe is not necessarily what eventually a court of law
> will believe...
>
>> At least not here in the U.S.
>
> Exactly!
> In many -if not most- European countries you are not allowed for instance
> to ask from your clients to pay you with let's say bills not greater than
> 50 euros!
> Or with small change!
> In these countries you can go and pay with a 500 euro bill and the
> shopkeeper has no right to reject it.
> If he does such a thing, he may face the law.
Which countries? Must not be the Netherlands.
I witnessed a shop keeper in Amsterdam nearly have a conniption because my
uncle, who had previously never been out of the country, dared to buy a
block of cheese with a bill that would have required change in coins. I
intervened with a one euro piece to end the tongue lashing he was receiving.
My poor uncle was standing there like a deer in headlights he was so
confused.
The Bulldog coffee shop refused to take 5 euro-cent pieces from me.
Patrick
(And yes, I was buying a coffee)
PC
"gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> So eBay is not enforcing Paypal as the *only* form of payment?!
> Because that's what I understood!
>
Literally? No. They offer a couple other obscure electronic payments
methods no one has ever heard of in order to skirt the monopoly charge.
Practically? Yes. They really make extraordinary efforts to make it seem
like PayPal is the only way to pay and their rules about not even being able
to mention that a check or money order is accepted, are complete crap.
eBay is shooting themselves in the foot, repeatedly. It's their rules,
their venue, and their foot. It will catch up to them.
Jim Menning
>
> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gmunmf$1t9m$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>
>> So eBay is not enforcing Paypal as the *only* form of payment?!
>> Because that's what I understood!
>>
>
> Literally? No. They offer a couple other obscure electronic payments methods no
> one has ever heard of in order to skirt the monopoly charge.
Accepting a credit card is by no means "obscure". Most merchants already have a
credit card account.
And you are confusing "monopoly" with "restraint of trade". Forcing only PayPal use
(which is NOT the case) would possibly constitute restraint of trade. However that's
a decision for the courts as the laws are flexible enough to be interpreted many ways
by the common man as well as by lawyers.
>
> Practically? Yes. They really make extraordinary efforts to make it seem like
> PayPal is the only way to pay and their rules about not even being able to mention
> that a check or money order is accepted, are complete crap.
> eBay is shooting themselves in the foot, repeatedly. It's their rules, their
> venue, and their foot. It will catch up to them.
EBay will survive until a legitimate contender comes along. Many have tried. All
have failed. And by stating this I am not blindly standing up for eBay; I would love
to see a real competitor. But no other venue offers me the ability to advertise and
sell my items to millions of potential buyers as profitably as eBay/PayPal do, hence
my current loyalty to them.
Jim Menning
"gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
I guess I'm not sure how to reply to this post, as most of what you have just said is
merely parroting what I posted previously.
PC
>
> "PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
> news:gmut0e$o5v$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:gmunmf$1t9m$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>>
>>> So eBay is not enforcing Paypal as the *only* form of payment?!
>>> Because that's what I understood!
>>>
>>
>> Literally? No. They offer a couple other obscure electronic payments
>> methods no one has ever heard of in order to skirt the monopoly charge.
>
> Accepting a credit card is by no means "obscure".
PayPal does not count as an alternate form of payment to PayPal.
> Most merchants already have a credit card account.
You garage sale seller is not usually equipped to accept credit card
payments. Screw the little guy. Oh wait - we have an exclusive service for
you. But you may not accept checks or money orders. BAD LITTLE SELLER
It will catch up to them. They are already declining.
Jim Menning
>
> "Jim Menning" <jmenni...@new.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:gmuvot$e1r$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
>> news:gmut0e$o5v$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gmunmf$1t9m$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>>>
>>>> So eBay is not enforcing Paypal as the *only* form of payment?!
>>>> Because that's what I understood!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Literally? No. They offer a couple other obscure electronic payments methods no
>>> one has ever heard of in order to skirt the monopoly charge.
>>
>> Accepting a credit card is by no means "obscure".
>
> PayPal does not count as an alternate form of payment to PayPal.
That's isn't what I said. VISA, MC, AMEX... Credit card use does not have to be
through PayPal.
>
>> Most merchants already have a credit card account.
>
> You garage sale seller is not usually equipped to accept credit card payments.
> Screw the little guy. Oh wait - we have an exclusive service for you. But you may
> not accept checks or money orders. BAD LITTLE SELLER
EBay's focus appears to encourage retailers to use them, and to let the individuals
fade away. It's their business, their goals, their philosophy,etc. They are free to
go into whatever direction they want. You are free to use them or any alternative
you choose. There are lots of options out there.
If the future holds a better alternative to eBay for the little guy, fine. But for
now they are still the best of their breed, for big guys and little guys.
>
> It will catch up to them. They are already declining.
So have 95% of all other US businesses in the current economical crisis.
gogu
news:gmusnm$qp$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gmumc3$1pk3$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>>> At least not here in the U.S.
>> Exactly!
>> In many -if not most- European countries you are not allowed for instance
>> to ask from your clients to pay you with let's say bills not greater than
>> 50 euros!
>> Or with small change!
>> In these countries you can go and pay with a 500 euro bill and the
>> shopkeeper has no right to reject it.
>> If he does such a thing, he may face the law.
> Which countries? Must not be the Netherlands.
Nope!
Italy, Greece, Spain, France, Portugal and I *think* also Germany, just to
name ones...
In these countries it's against the law to refuse to accept any form of the
local currency (well, that was the law before the euro time...), while in
England for instance it seems that the shopkeepers can dictate many of the
ways they would like to be paid (as I was told -but I find it hard to
believe...- they can even refuse to be paid in their own national
currency!!!).
> I witnessed a shop keeper in Amsterdam nearly have a conniption because my
> uncle, who had previously never been out of the country, dared to buy a
> block of cheese with a bill that would have required change in coins.
Been there, bought and received change, so the case must be an isolated one
and the seller must be a stupid seller;-)
I wish him bankruptcy; with the actual economic crisis clients become more
precious than ever and such practices are hurting the business of stupid/bad
sellers...
> (And yes, I was buying a coffee)
;-)
gogu
>
> "gogu" <golanule_VA-DA-MUIE@MUIE_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gmune4$1sls$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>>>> And you can understand it from the simple fact that eBay doesn't dare
OTOH I believe this posting does not deserve to be answered...
PS
I may "parroting" what you have posted before, for the simple reason
that until now I thought that eBay in the US was enforcing Paypal as the
*unique* form of payment!
Peter
> Jim Menning wrote:
> > "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>
> >> But again, I can't speak with certainty that that isn't indeed the
> >> rule, as I can't lay my hands on the text of the policy. Where's Jim
> >> Menning when you need him? James
>
> > Ask, and ye shall receive.
>
> >http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html
>
> > And thanks for pointing out the misuse of the word "monopole". I was
> > cringing each time I saw another poster using it.
>
> Whew! I'm relieved to see I can still pay for my porn with a money order!
>
> If I interpret this correctly, PayPal is not prescribed, but given as one of
> a list of five choices, from which the seller must pick at least one, is
> that the way you interpret it?
>
> In any event, this is turning out to be other than most of us appear to
> believe. As for me, I've never heard of ProPay, Moneybookers, or Paymate.
>
> Just as a precaution, some time ago you and I found different, and
> conflicting sets of rules about some issue that I can't remember right
> offhand. Can we safely assume that what you have linked is the one and only
> statement on this topic?
>
> that there really is a magnetic monopole. Got one right here, stuck to the
> inside of my lunchbox. Nobel in physics, here I come!
>
> James (but not the Maxwell guy)
I have a small quibble here. The issue in the link is what the seller
may offer to accept. I see nothing that says the buyer may not ask to
use another form of payment and it does not forbid its use. It merely
requires that the seller be clear about what he offers to accept and
limits what he may offer to accept.
Mr. Jaggers
No quibble necessary. What you propose is exactly what several of us have
concluded as a result of these exchanges. It's always a good idea to go
back to primary documents in any kind of discussion, as opposed to relying
on rumor, speculation, and feelings in our bones!
James
PC
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>>
>> I have a small quibble here. The issue in the link is what the seller
>> may offer to accept. I see nothing that says the buyer may not ask to
>> use another form of payment and it does not forbid its use. It merely
>> requires that the seller be clear about what he offers to accept and
>> limits what he may offer to accept.
>
> No quibble necessary. What you propose is exactly what several of us have
> concluded as a result of these exchanges. It's always a good idea to go
> back to primary documents in any kind of discussion, as opposed to relying
> on rumor, speculation, and feelings in our bones!
>
I do get queries from time to time from prospective buyers. They are
usually long time eBay users. A couple people have even cited an aversion
to PayPal as the reason for their desire to pay by check/money order.
Newbies may never know they can send a check or money order because, heaven
forbid that a seller indicates that it is OK.
It is a stupid rule, based on greed hiding behind a shawl of buyer
protection. Sickening.
Mr. Jaggers
Greed hides everywhere, and it's what makes the world go 'round.
James
PC
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>> It is a stupid rule, based on greed hiding behind a shawl of buyer
>> protection. Sickening.
>
> Greed hides everywhere, and it's what makes the world go 'round.
A necessary evil, you say?
mazorj
It's not necessarily a necessary evil. But it is a genetic trait that
confers its own evolutionary advantages. (So does altruism, but it's
more subtle. Altruism benefits the species, not the individual.)
Market economies being a very late comer to human history, they just
grafted themselves onto a previously existing human condition.
So greed is what it is. I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam.
- popeyej
Sailor, philosopher, spinach addict
Mr. Jaggers
Where did I say necessary? I believe the proper word would be "ubiquitous."
James
oly
Were you in STL today? oly
Mr. Jaggers
Yesterday and today both, as one of my dealer friends got me an early bird
pass. About two-thirds of the dealers were set up by closing time on
Thursday, and the crowd was rather sparse. Friday (today as I write this)
it was very crowded and hard to get close enough to see the coins at a lot
of tables. It appeared that there was buying and selling going on, so coin
life is still good! I picked up a couple of very low grade New Jersey
coppers, but such things are what I am able to aspire to since retirement,
and these two pieces show the pertinent features well enough to suit me just
fine. There's just something about old coppers that have thoroughly served
their purpose and yet remain handsome still - kind of like you and me. 8>)
I tried to keep an eye peeled for a possible oly sighting, but thought you
were likely slaving away at work, it being a weekday. I didn't miss you,
did I? That would not be cool.
James
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had the day off, but did not venture down there. oly
Mr. Jaggers
You should have, we could have quaffed a root beer or two.
James
oly
I have been quaffing the diet A&W rather heavily. Damn good stuff. I
am trying to save up for the CICF, so I didn't go to STL.
oly