[gaucho]

eBay's business depends on minimizing fraud. Co-operation with law enforcement is part of that.

Let's put this in a different context since the first line of their Legal Requests policy also states that they cooperate with anyone, not just LEO's

eBay cooperates with law enforcement inquiries, as well as other third parties to enforce laws, such as: intellectual property rights, fraud and other rights,

Now, let's assume (hypothetically, I've never sold anything on eBay) that I have a few CD's that I have purchased and over time sold on eBay and the RIAA considers that to be depriving them of their rights to collect royalties on used CD sales (something they are actively trying to persue).

The RIAA decides that they are going to Fax eBay to get a full history on all my transactions claiming that I'm stealing their intellectual property. They now have a listing of the 50 CD's that I have sold on eBay for the past 2 years and decide that they are going to sue me for IP theft. They never had a court order to obtain this information, but because they are the RIAA eBay willingly complied. I never did anything wrong, I only sold some CD's that I purchased at one time or another and those CD's where my property to sell. The RIAA doesn't think so and they sue hoping that I will settle out of court with them (their new tactic). Is this fair? Seems to me like this policy is wide open for abuse.

[CurlyDave]

The ones doing the abusing in your hypothetical example are the RIAA.

As much as I agree that the RIAA is a major pain in the fanny, they are the problem, not eBay. The RIAA could just as easily get the same info by tracking your sales of used CDs.

[Nick Danger]

I think that you are going to have to face the fact that all arguments based on the privacy, convenience, or rights of the seller are going to fall on deaf ears.

eBay is about buyers. So long as eBay has buyers coming to its site, sellers will grin and bear whatever it takes to have access to them.

The biggest threat to buyers, and hence to eBay's continued existence, is con artists and fraudsters hiding amongst the legitimate sellers. It is the nature of the medium that they are going to be vulnerable to that. eBay not only has to weed these people out, it has to make a big show of the fact that it is weeding them out. It has to put up big signs that say "ATTENTION CROOKS: Not here. Don't even think about it." Part of that is to ward off the crooks, but reassuring buyers is every bit as important.

As a practical matter you cannot win this. The customer is always right. The customer is the guy with the money... the buyer. The buyer wants to know that this faceless entity offering goods for sale on a web site is not some crook.

Imagine fBay, the competing site that assures buyers, "All our sellers are guaranteed complete anonymity. You may buy from them with complete assurance that no law enforcement officer will ever be able to find out who they are." C'mon, you wouldn't buy anything there yourself.

By the way, the RIAA has the legal right to do what you described. eBay would have no choice. Thank your CongressCritter for the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which allows copyright owners to hunt you down without a court order.

[MattAMiller]

Why is someone sitting in their home and selling used CDs entitled to more protection than the guy who opens up a used CD store?