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

Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

modernretail.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

#71

Post by ajross »

danaris wrote: post #67
ajross wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the brands have a closer connection to their customers That's... not a thing though. No such thing as "brand rights" [1] beyond stuff like trademark, which clearly doesn't apply here. In particular there's no inherent recognition of a manufacturers ability to control what happens to downstream goods. Stuff is stuff, if you sell stuff the people you sell it to can sell it too. [1] Nor do we really want there to be?…

It's not bad because ZOMG AMZN , it's bad because * Amazon is a monopoly* , and thus anything they do to take more control should be treated with extreme suspicion.

Again, no such thing. There's no antitrust regulatory framework that recognizes the ability of "small" brands to constrain their downstream markets in ways "big" ones can't.

People are getting bent out of shape here, again, based on the specific player. But seriously what do you really think the solution is supposed to look like? I just don't see a fix here that won't make things worse, and I absolutely don't see one available under current law.

Re: Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

#72

Post by jonhohle »

donatj wrote: post #70

I feel like all Amazon is really doing here is reselling the product, and that seems ... fine to me? Buy from the seller, sell to the user. Seems pretty reasonable. You can resell things you buy from shops legally, not just wholesalers.

Are these business upset when Google lists their products in search results? What if Amazon placed a retail order for x00 units, would they not be fulfilled? Couldn’t they just resell them on Amazon under first sale doctrine?

Re: Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

#73

Post by jonhohle »

kayson wrote: post #32

Wouldn't this be violating copyrights left and right? Presumably most of these listings have pictures and I'd be surprised if Amazon were asking permission to reproduce them. Would the same apply to item descriptions...?

The first sale doctrine allows for public of owned works for the purpose of sale. Otherwise eBay, used book store, and flea markets would all be massively violating copyright.

Re: Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

#74

Post by jonhohle »

userbinator wrote: post #54
saghm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fundamentally fine"? How do you think Amazon would react to someone scraping their marketplace and posting the inventory under their own service? Unless the answer is "they'd be perfectly happy to have to opt out individually in each case", that's a double standard. The only reason they wouldn't actually need to care about this is because they have comparatively inexhaustive resources to be able to shut this sort of…

I have bought items from AliExpress which somehow arrived from an Amazon warehouse, unexpectedly quickly. The price was right and I have no other complaints, so I think it does happen.

Any fulfilled can use FBA (fulfilled by Amazon) for their own inventory and their own retail front end. Amazon charges storage and shipping fees and the items do not need to be for sale on Amazon.com.

https://sell.amazon.com/fulfillment-by-amazon

Re: Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

#75

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #48
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These manufacturers never signed any ToS, and the most Amazon could do to retaliate would be to de-list the product that they never asked to be listed in the first place.

When the manufacturer buys their own product via Amazon’s service they would become subject to their TOS as a buyer.

I guess they'll just have to use some service to buy for them instead. ;)

Re: Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

#76

Post by pdpi »

userbinator wrote: post #58
internet101010 wrote: post #12

Most manufacturers have restrictions on where retailers can sell their product for exactly this reason. The fact that Amazon is doing this is just going to result in a lot of unnecessary billable hours. Another reason they do not allow it is because if something is popular Amazon will make their own private label version. Completely irresponsible behavior.

Those are only in the case of specific contracts, but Amazon did not enter into any contract with the manufacturers. Seling something you bought is completely legal and perfectly normal.

If they’re passing on my own address and payment details, are they _actually_ selling something they bought?

Using an agent of some sort to figure out where to put how to pass the payment information seems more than a little irresponsible too, maybe illegally so.

Re: Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

#77

Post by otterley »

bramblerose wrote: post #59
otterley wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The producer of a good has no copyright in images made of that good by someone else. Ordinarily, the photographer holds the copyright to an image, unless it was a work for hire. So if I buy a thing, take a photo of it, then use my photo to accompany a listing for that thing, the manufacturer of that thing has no recourse in copyright law.

Unless the design of the object is copyrightable (which it often is!) in which case the photo is a derivative work.

The design of an object is not copyrightable in the USA, at least. There are design patents, but taking a photo of an object that has a patented design is not a derivative work. Copyright and patent are different IP subject areas entirely.

(IAAL, not legal advice.)

Re: Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

#78

Post by nradov »

pdpi wrote: post #76
userbinator wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are only in the case of specific contracts, but Amazon did not enter into any contract with the manufacturers. Seling something you bought is completely legal and perfectly normal.

If they’re passing on my own address and payment details, are they _actually_ selling something they bought? Using an agent of some sort to figure out where to put how to pass the payment information seems more than a little irresponsible too, maybe illegally so.

Which specific law do you think is being broken here?

Re: Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

#79

Post by danaris »

ajross wrote: post #71
danaris wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not bad because ZOMG AMZN , it's bad because * Amazon is a monopoly* , and thus anything they do to take more control should be treated with extreme suspicion.

Again, no such thing. There's no antitrust regulatory framework that recognizes the ability of "small" brands to constrain their downstream markets in ways "big" ones can't. People are getting bent out of shape here, again, based on the specific player. But seriously what do you really think the solution is supposed to look like? I just don't see a fix here that won't make things worse, and I absolutely don't see one…

Did I say this was a legal argument? I don't see that anywhere.

And there's absolutely zero chance the current administration is going to take any positive antitrust steps unless the target just happens to be one that seriously pisses off Trump.

"Monopolies shouldn't be allowed to control everything" is a practical, economic, and moral argument before it is a legal one. If there is no legal framework to protect small brands from a company like Amazon coming in and doing these things, then perhaps there should be. (It's possible, though unlikely, that there's no practical way to do so without sufficient negative side effects that it harms more than it helps: I haven't sat down and tried to work out the second- and third-order effects.)

In case it's not abundantly clear, one very likely endgame of this for Amazon is picking the products within this subset that do the best, ripping them off itself (either fully legally, for simple manufactured goods, or questionably or outright illegally for things one buys because of the design—like shirts with particular art on them), and selling those under the cost the original creators need to be profitable. Those creators then go out of business. Then Amazon can, if they wish, raise the prices to whatever the market will bear.

The creators lose. The consumers lose. Even the wholesalers and manufacturers likely lose, if they're still involved, because Amazon is going to be paying them less for the same product due to economies of scale.

The only one that wins is Amazon. By design.

Re: Brands upset Buy For Me is featuring their products on Amazon without permission

#80

Post by ajross »

danaris wrote: post #79
ajross wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, no such thing. There's no antitrust regulatory framework that recognizes the ability of "small" brands to constrain their downstream markets in ways "big" ones can't. People are getting bent out of shape here, again, based on the specific player. But seriously what do you really think the solution is supposed to look like? I just don't see a fix here that won't make things worse, and I absolutely don't see one…

Did I say this was a legal argument? I don't see that anywhere. And there's absolutely zero chance the current administration is going to take any positive antitrust steps unless the target just happens to be one that seriously pisses off Trump. "Monopolies shouldn't be allowed to control everything" is a practical, economic, and moral argument before it is a legal one. If there is no legal framework to protect small…

> Did I say this was a legal argument? I don't see that anywhere.

Ahem, I said that, in the comment to which you responded. Forgive me for making assumptions about the context of discussion.

But that said, I still don't see where you're going with this. No fix for what you want exists that wouldn't also outlaw stuff like fashion consultants, custom PC builders and thrift shops.

Post reply on HN