271–280 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They just settled two weeks ago. See the last document filed.
There's no information on a settlement, only that both parties agree to drop the lawsuit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Amazon knows which seller sent in the inventory for every order, so they know to punish the right seller when a complaint comes in. Huuuuge citation needed. It’s precisely because of comingling that they don’t have the ability to do this: they put multiple sellers goods, including their own, in the same storage bins, provided they have the same UPC. By what means do you suggest they can distinguish Seller A’s widge…
Amazon should known which seller sent in the inventory. That they intentionally choose not to know that, is their own intentional mistake, and their abdication of responsibility that really should be theirs. They intentionally create a confusing situation that enables counterfeiters. They are absolutely, totally responsible for this mess and should have hurried to fix this a long time ago. That they haven't, means th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But without Amazon doing their own QC there is no way to say it is the same product. You should at least be able to see reviews based on the supplier and pick the supplier you will be fulfilled by. But I suspect that would ruin their whole 2-day/1-day shipping bit.
They do QC: sellers that have too many complaints get kicked off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lot of masks make claims about being NIOSH approved and N95 certified, but they don't provide the approval numbers and NIOSH has no records of the manufacturer. I even saw some masks that supplied an invalid NIOSH approval number (it had been revoked in 2014). IMO, this is criminal.
Just like the fake eclipse glasses of a couple of years ago. At one point, essentially all were found to be fake/not-as-spec and Amazon had zero available two weeks before the eclipse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walmart has ... issues ... with their supply chain for their physical stores. Part of the problem is that they're big enough to enable Walmart-specific versions of products.
As someone who hates this practice, including store-brand labels (ie Sam's Choice)... At this point I'll happily take the Walmart-specific version over the risk of an Amazon supplied product.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm with you that co-branded products like "Only at Target" KitchenAid are pretty much trash but store-brand stuff doesn't really seem that different to me than any other brand on the shelf. Kroger brand pretzels are dope, their Oreo clone is garbage, c'est la vie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if I'll buy any more technical books anymore, even in electronic form. O'Reilly doesn't sell e-books directly, which made me mad. You can get their subscription service, or buy the paper version. I ended up buying the book I wanted from Google.
I prefer books in paper though, better for my battered eyes... BTW really hate those everything-as-subscription business models. Good thing they still have those. I'm afraid that they will disappear in 10-15 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed - and there have been cases of dangerous goods being shipped, e.g. counterfeit chargers. I've stopped buying things from Amazon and instead gone back to using bricks and mortar stores with online presences and do click and collect, there's just too much crap to sift through these days.
I've found that (at least when it comes to lower-end electronics) even brick and mortars appear to have supply chain problems that allow counterfeit items into stores en masse. In the USA, I've encountered things like counterfeit Microsoft mice at Microcenter, and counterfeit Audio Technica earbuds at Fry's Electronics (both confirmed as fakes by the manufacturer). I'm starting to suspect there are other cases of thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. Are they fucking serious? They blame federal law for not prosecuting counterfeiters instead of themselves for allowing them to run rampant on their website? (i.e. They want the federal government to do their house-cleaning for them.) I never thought I'd read such a dumb excuse from a company this big.
I blame federal law for not prosecuting Amazon for selling so many counterfeit products. Amazon is the one selling them. They are responsible for ensuring they deliver the product that the buyer is paying for, and not some cheap knock-off
I am always perplexed and bemused on these threads by all the people who will openly admit, "Amazon sent me junk and didn't care, but I still buy things from them."
I don't care what particular business strategy or operational process makes this happens. This is Piracy . This is what Copyright was originally conceived to fight against. Amazon should be slapped with the same RIAA/MPAA-style grotesquely theatrical / existential threat fines that random individuals were treated with. Otherwise is the same old canis canem non est
No, piracy is if Amazon raids mercantile ships for their goods. If we can just start willy nilly assigning offenses with worse connotations then what is to stop absursity like referring to bouncing checks as treason or delinquent parking tickets as child molestation? Hell many of the "counterfeits" are really unauthorized production because they were made by the same factories they outsourced to. Counterfeiting impli…
Dude, get over it (and yourself.)
I don't care what particular business strategy or operational process makes this happens. This is Piracy . This is what Copyright was originally conceived to fight against. Amazon should be slapped with the same RIAA/MPAA-style grotesquely theatrical / existential threat fines that random individuals were treated with. Otherwise is the same old canis canem non est
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settl...
QUOTE:
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A day after being sued for illegally sharing music files through the Internet, a 12-year-old girl has settled with the Recording Industry Association of America.
She's the first of 261 defendants to settle their lawsuits with the association.
Brianna LaHara agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000, or about $2 per song she allegedly shared.
"I am sorry for what I have done," LaHara said. "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service.
The RIAA said it was pleased with the settlement. There are 260 cases still pending.
"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file-sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer. "And as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers."