Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

regretsy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 303 posts

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#251

Post by kls »

walexander wrote: post #123
dotBen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't know this 10.1 b clause until now but it makes it VERY clear to me: NEVER use PayPal to sell anything that could in anyway be disputed as counterfeit given that the terms allow PayPal to deems what is genuine/fake remotely, without physical inspection and results in not only money witheld but a potentially genuine item being destroyed. So so crazy.

I froze for a second after reading that statement, which I was completely unaware of. I sometimes buy and sell rare coins (particularly US Morgan dollars), which regularly go for thousands of dollars. I have one on eBay at this very moment that I'm attempting to get $3000+ for. I've never heard of such a dispute happening before, or have I had any issues in the past, but now knowing this, i'm really scared of what mi…

If I where in your situation, I would immediately add that text to all of my auctions with a justification as to why you will not accept pay-pal for your particular transactions. I would then use a third party escrow service for anything that pay-pal could consider a counterfeit. This sounds to me like Pay-Pal is doing the bidding of trademark holders. When that is not it's role in society. It's not the counterfeit police and it should not be in the business of destroying counterfeit merchandise. They should require it be returned and if they feel like being good Samaritans, notify the trademark holder of the infringement. Let the holder police their own crap.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#252

Post by lutorm »

ceol wrote: post #168
FreakLegion wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, the small claims court fee for this case would be $50, and lawyers are barred from representing either party.

Until the appeal, I believe.

It looks like you're right. I wasn't aware of that.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#253

Post by JonnieCache »

jpitz wrote: post #248
JonnieCache wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, ultrasonic frequencies will interact with each other in the room (reflections, reverb and so on) in a way that causes interference in the frequency range you can hear. This is why it is important to record instruments with higher sample rates (192khz is standard) in order to fully preserve their sonic character for further processing. This is one answer to the question "why do musicians record ultrasound,"…

>In short, ultrasonic frequencies will interact with each other in the room (reflections, reverb and so on) in a way that causes interference in the frequency range you can hear. If a vibrating membrane of skin in my head can react to it, then it is a wave traveling through air. Why wouldn't this hold for a microphone?

The idea is that once you've recorded the sound, you want to be able to mix it with other sounds in an arbitrary virtual 3D space, so you need the ultrasound. I think.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#254

Post by cube13 »

ctrager wrote: post #234
leelin wrote: post #14

Wait, isn't $2500 very cheap for a violin? I seem to remember the rather mediocre violin I had as a kid costing more than that (such hopeful tiger parents).

You CAN get a great sounding violin on eBay for $200, but you might have to buy and return a couple dozen violins to end up with one you like. My story is, that for my kid, I bought a $5,000 violin from a dealer after doing blind testing among a range of violins with ourselves and my kid's high-powered teachers. Everybody agreed that this was a great sounding violin. A couple years later, I wanted a cheap violin for…

This is pretty much why I can't believe that any serious musician would buy a musical instrument for over a few hundred dollars, sight unseen. There are simply too many variables to make that kind of purchase worthwhile. If the buyer isn't serious about it, a cheaper instrument will probably be exactly what they need for years. For serious musicians, an instrument that they're comfortable with is more important than anything else, and they should be trying out every one before they buy it.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#255

Post by kls »

walexander wrote: post #187
prawn wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be trivial for someone to dispute the authenticity of the coin, receive PayPal's request for its destruction, photograph something that looked like a mangled coin, and then essentially get the coin for free?

Considering the amount of money to be made, I think it's reasonable. I present the following: 1) Get the original (say, $3000 coin) carefully out of the holder - then smash the holder with a hammer. 2) Find a replica of that year coin, which really is a fake, for $10-$50. Scratch it up, bend it, whatever. 3) Send the original coin back for grading to be certified with a new graded coin holder and serial number, to be…

Right which is what seems so illogical to me about this policy. I having little experience with coins could probably come up with that one pretty quickly. As well with the subject of this post a violin. I could easily go get a kids First Start violin for under $100 and smash it, take a photo and send it in. This to me seems like the most ill conceived business process ever dreamed up. Hell 20 minutes in Photoshop and I could destroy anything.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#256

Post by kls »

Lukeas14 wrote: post #113
blantonl wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are someone who cannot afford the legal fees that would allow you to challenge said legality/enforceability. Which is pretty much anyone.

A $2500 case would go to small claims court in most US states where legal fees are not as much of an issue.

It's much bigger than a $2500 case any lawyer worth his salt is going to argue that the seller has suffered irreversible damage to his brand as a seller.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#257

Post by cube13 »

jpitz wrote: post #248
JonnieCache wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, ultrasonic frequencies will interact with each other in the room (reflections, reverb and so on) in a way that causes interference in the frequency range you can hear. This is why it is important to record instruments with higher sample rates (192khz is standard) in order to fully preserve their sonic character for further processing. This is one answer to the question "why do musicians record ultrasound,"…

>In short, ultrasonic frequencies will interact with each other in the room (reflections, reverb and so on) in a way that causes interference in the frequency range you can hear. If a vibrating membrane of skin in my head can react to it, then it is a wave traveling through air. Why wouldn't this hold for a microphone?

>If a vibrating membrane of skin in my head can react to it, then it is a wave traveling through air. Why wouldn't this hold for a microphone?

Microphones don't respond in the same way to the same frequencies that your eardrum does. They can generally only record a subset of the total audio spectrum. So they're unable to completely reproduce the sound that was created by the instrument. If the ultrasonic frequencies resonate with a frequency that you can hear, it can cause some odd things to happen if the mic isn't able to record the frequency directly.

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#258

Post by DanBC »

hackermom wrote: post #195
DanBC wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know buyer did destroy the violin, and not some random shitty violin?

We don't, but the end result for the affected party (the seller) is the same - he lost $2500 worth of goods due to the buyer violating his property and material rights on request of PayPal.

I'm trying to ask "How do we know the buyer is not malicious? He buys a violin; disputes authenticity; destroys some stand in violin (keeping original); gets money back; sells original violin via different account; gets more money."

That's not something paypal can cope with, or is it?

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#259

Post by Dove »

AnthonBerg wrote: post #201
marshray wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should really try to appreciate how a musician relates to their antique violin. Would you not understand peoples' sadness if a collection of great paintings were destroyed in a museum fire? The sickest part of it was that it was destroyed intentionally by humans for no good reason at all. Sure, this was not the most valuable piece in the world but there are definitely a finite number of them remaining. My guess i…

If only we were as compassionate towards, say, starving people.

Puzzling. Do you think people would be less irate if, instead of a violin destroyed, it had been a starving person?

Re: PayPal forces buyer to destroy $2500 pre-WWII antique violin in dispute

#260

Post by rlpb »

kls wrote: post #251
walexander wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I froze for a second after reading that statement, which I was completely unaware of. I sometimes buy and sell rare coins (particularly US Morgan dollars), which regularly go for thousands of dollars. I have one on eBay at this very moment that I'm attempting to get $3000+ for. I've never heard of such a dispute happening before, or have I had any issues in the past, but now knowing this, i'm really scared of what mi…

If I where in your situation, I would immediately add that text to all of my auctions with a justification as to why you will not accept pay-pal for your particular transactions. I would then use a third party escrow service for anything that pay-pal could consider a counterfeit. This sounds to me like Pay-Pal is doing the bidding of trademark holders. When that is not it's role in society. It's not the counterfeit p…

On eBay, accepting Paypal is mandatory.
Post reply on HN