2nd hand K-mart bike for 133% more than new

[ldrcycles]

at "jenny". "stop hosting images"!

[queequeg]

Must have bought a couple. Since the first one sold i might have to head for Kmart myself.

Ah yes, but if you read the ad it says the bike was a gift and they have no time to ride it (because they are too busy on their creative writing course).

[ldrcycles]

Must have bought a couple. Since the first one sold i might have to head for Kmart myself.

Ah yes, but if you read the ad it says the bike was a gift and they have no time to ride it (because they are too busy on their creative writing course).

And adding more lens flare .

[TTar]

Hello my learn'd friends, Original Poster, TTar here

It would appear I've become something of a celebrity at least on this thread. Take your jollies where you find them, I say.

Firstly, I wish to acknowledge the traditional admin of this site, AUbicycles, and express my gratitude and respect for all his hard work and extend my personal thanks to him for dealing with this... ...situation.

He has dealt with the supposed copyright infringement question, but other aspects of the 'ausbike' communique, as best as I can understand them, seem to refer and ascribe certain motivations and agendas to me which are simply not true and quite insulting and intrusive.

I will reiterate I have absolutely no connection with the seller. (BTW, I would be quite happy for that relationship status to be maintained forever). However, when misrepresented by someone of curious identity, I will exercise my right to defend my reputation (such as it is) on this majestic forum.

So here goes:

1- I am the coordinator of the user forum (international, no affiliation with this site)

Would you care to extend an invitation to me and anyone else interested to discuss this matter on your forum? After all, this is a discussion you have initiated.

2- I would also like to point out that this post started with a misleading analogy

What!? I simply made the observation that the seller's second hand $350 bike looked "remarkably similar" to a $150 K-mart Southern Star Citi bike. I even linked (in a non-copyright-infringing way) to a couple of photos to prove the point. It's not even an analogy, it's a simple comparison.

3- after the complaints we received...

Complaints "you" received? In what capacity did you receive these complaints? Are you some sort of officially accredited body?

4- ...we checked with the shop the author mentioned, we were told it's not possible to ride any bike home, the best we could get from the shop promoted by the author was to take some components home in a box

"Shop"? The seller presented as an individual who was gifted this bike recently. You were also told it's "not possible to ride any bike home" and the seller is actually offering nothing more than "some components ... in a box"? I'd put it you, the seller is grievously misrepresenting themselves if that's the case.

5- The author of the post is comparing prices between two very different things

It sure does seem that way, but in my defence, I will ask you to consider the seller posted a picture of a fully assembled (and, it would be fair to assume, fully functioning) bike photogenically parked in Darling Harbour and not a picture a of some components in a box. The convention when posting pictures of goods you are selling online, is to post pictures of the actual goods that are being being sold. You may wish to inform the seller of this as it would appear they are, at the very least, breaching Gumtree policy.

6- Clearly a post like this depend on error of judgement of the admin to survive (assuming the post was not started by the admin's mate)


Before the advent of this thread, I couldn't have told you who this site's admin was. Outside our very brief exchange in this thread, I have not at any time had any contact of any description whatsoever with admin AUbicycles. Although I do in a collegiate sort of way, (as I do with most other BNA members whom I've had no contact with), consider myself a "mate" of the admin. You shouldn't draw too much into it, though, there's no collusion occuring here. You may care to reassure the seller of this because, you know, you're two different people, and all.

7- We have previously made attempt to reveal the truth

Try harder.

8- it's reported misled viewers of this post...

I doubt there were any "misled viewers of this post".

9- We are recording this replying process and running a parallel discussion in independent forums hosted on other sites as to assist and encourage correct actions to be taken by the admin of this site.

I'm sure your encouragement is deeply appreciated by all concerned, but you're in contact with the fabled Original Poster right now, so why don't you address your concerns directly to me? Or better yet, let's reconvene on one of these other "independent forums" where you're running a "parallel discussion", after all, as you yourself might say; "A worthy forum should allow balance view..."

Meantime, I stand by everything I've said, implied or vaguely hinted at in all my posts in this thread.

10- Anyone who has read this entire post (or even this entire thread) needs to be urgently advised that your time would be much better spent riding your bike -- see youse out there...

[Mulger bill]

Well, hasn't this been fun?

Now, speaking as a member, with my magic yellow/red helmet in a box in the back of the shed...

G'Day Jenny, who the fred are you? Properly establishing your bona fides may well go a long way in getting you some sympathy.

I'm still a little sad at what the world is coming to now that dodgy internet sellers appear to have formed a "professional" association.

Shaun

[ausbike]

Hi Jenny here, let me first congratulate the admin to have the courage to release my replies under pressure, my interest is expressed in my replies. Unlike TTar who offered the admin unlimited compliment, I am here to offer a fair view regardless if it's popular - My full answer to the "vested interest" question.

The new challenge for the admin is if you can let the public see my view before attaching an "official" interpretation to it.

The stolen image issue is far from resolved, stealing an image to host in another site is stealing. Sorry to be blunt, i think we should make it clear stealing is stealing. If the hosting arrangement is not made automatically by this site, TTar is fully responsible for stealing. Site admin should give TTar a chance to take corrective action.

May TTar/Admin display a written permission from any of the copyright owners to allow you to host their photos on another site.

I also challenge those who involved in this discussion to make a declaration that you have never sold anything in competition to sellers targeted by this post.

In this country, we raise issues (legally without involving stealing), let the accused to respond and heard (false accusations through misleading analogy are not uncommon), use proper reasoning and process to determine what action is appropriate before any actions taken, kangaroo court thinking is not the way to go, you think you have an oppinion and that's a reason to spam? My advice is, you think, but you don't spam (see the differences?). it's not about your victims' spam filters.

My interest is expressed in full through all my replies.

In short,

1- it's not wise to allow this forum to continue to associate with stolen images, or support those who rely on stolen images to make themselves popular. Any decent forum can do without this kind of things.

2- allow full revelation of the hidden facts behind TTar's misleading analogy and why TTar made such a deliberate attempt to manipulate what's supposedly a place for free competition

[Duck!]

Oooh, touchy.

[ldrcycles]

The stolen image issue is far from resolved, stealing an image to host in another site is stealing. Sorry to be blunt, i think we should make it clear stealing is stealing. If the hosting arrangement is not made automatically by this site, TTar is fully responsible for stealing. Site admin should give TTar a chance to take corrective action.

You don't seem to be getting this, that image was posted on gumtree by the seller. No one has "stolen" it, and it is not being hosted anywhere else. You complain about false accusations and then make one yourself.

I notice you have completely dodged the question of what forum it is that you supposedly represent.

H
I also challenge those who involved in this discussion to make a declaration that you have never sold anything in competition to sellers targeted by this post.

As for this I can say hand on heart, I am not involved in any way in attempting to sell rubbish bikes at vastly inflated prices through the use of snazzy photography and misleading descriptions .

[queequeg]

The reposted ad has now vanished from gumtree. I think Jenny has taken her bat and ball and gone home.

[ausbike]

"that image was posted on gumtree by the seller. No one has "stolen" it"

- You are shifting the subject, we are not talking the images elsewhere, the ones here are what I am talking about. On the first post, TTar is not posting a text link to the image, the actual image was posted to form part of the page. Maybe your computer does not display images, I believe most of the world does. You need copyright owner's permission to do that. Read the copyright legislation before your reply, thanks.

I notice you have completely dodged the question of what forum it is that you supposedly represent.

- I am a participant of this forum just like you. My view is in all my replies.

"I am not involved in any way in attempting to sell rubbish bikes at vastly inflated prices through the use of snazzy photography and misleading descriptions"

- what a long answer, so you sell bikes, but you labeled other sellers " sell rubbish bikes at vastly inflated prices through the use of snazzy photography and misleading descriptions", I understand, wonder what they can label you though

The reposted ad has now vanished from gumtree. I think Jenny has taken her bat and ball and gone home.

- You are not interested in the discussion, you just want some sellers' ads removed and not yours, spammers can achieve that sometimes, I am totally against this mentality, sorry. Any decent participant would refrain from celebrating the competition's ads being removed. This is for discussion, not for spam.

[lucky7]

Jenny,

I think the degreaser fumes have finally done too much damage. Perhaps it's time to take your grammatically awkward indignation somewhere else? I now want to see your scam sales fail...I really do.

[AUbicycles]

Hi Jenny here, let me first congratulate the admin to have the courage to release my replies under pressure

I explained my motivations for not publishing:
1. I feel it is better to resolve outside of the public forum
2. We don't know your relationship and I believe you have a vested interest and are not disclosing this.


You still have still not explained your relationship with the seller. With whom am I communicating with reference to this topic?

You use the word 'stolen' - and I have shown you the original links to confirm that these are NOT stolen and are not hosted on this site rather they are linked and a disclosure is provided that the original poster and other posters do not assume ownership however state the source of the images.

Lets make this abslutely clear, if there is an issue with the images being linked then I will happily amend or remove however I don't know who you are, you have not identified yourself. If the seller contacts me and asks me to remove an image-link that one of the members of the cycling forum has linked to - I will do this. So far I have not heard from the seller.

--

For the rest of your post, I read it but it doesn't make sense and is simply a waste of time - I have been far more accommodating than you have considering that the Original Poster highlighted an ad that most likely violated the Terms of Use for Gumtree by providing misleading information.

[AUbicycles]

Um, this is wasting my time.

I couldn't be bothered wasting my time with the person who calls themself Jenny who has says they were independent however wont disclose who they are and what their interest is and in my view seems to be untruthful. I have removed the 2 images so they wont display but trust you will appreciate that I have linked to the google cache so that other people who are interested in purchasing have the benefit of judging for themself whether the advert is incorrect or misleading.


So Jenny now has what he or she wants - now let me do worthwhile things.

[ausbike]

"I think the degreaser fumes have finally done too much damage. Perhaps it's time to take your grammatically awkward indignation somewhere else? I now want to see your scam sales fail...I really do." -lucky7

this has more to do with personal attack than discussing the topic, my view is what I share, not anything else, sorry, I just couldn't bother to support your personal attack, the sellers targeted by TTar can join this discussion too, I don't supposed you would attack them personally as I don't believe the forum would accommodate attitude like this.

I believe the admin has a point or two. I have to go but can come to share my view another day, I like to see the input of the targeted sellers if possible.

[AUbicycles]

No - this topic is now closed. The linked images are now longer displayed and you have not revealed your association with the seller.

Your posts are difficult to follow and unusally worded plus you make unreasonable demands. That said, please don't be offended by the post by lucky7, if you truely have no relationship with the gumtree seller then this is not a personal attack and unfortunately if you do - this comment from lucky7 harshly worded however the gumtree ads are misleading and I believe violate the terms of gumtree so can understand the sentiment as many members here are interested in the common good.

So, this topic is now closed.

[ausbike]

i think we should get the targeted sellers' input

[find_bruce]

i think we should get the targeted sellers' input

What a great suggestion. I can't wait for the explanation as to how many times you can sell the same two bikes.

The prose will undoubtably be something to behold & hopefully it will be accompanied by photographs as they have a real flare for it.

[TTar]

What an incredibly grim way to spend your Sunday evening, ausbike, especially for someone who claims to be... what? Your comments on this forum imply you're not the seller and you seem reluctant to reveal what interest you have in this or whether you represent the seller. Really, you should be dismissed as an eccentric nuisance, but it's a measure of the courteous and patient nature of this site's admin that you're paid any attention at all.

You use my title, TTar, eight times and make all sorts of accusations in page three of this thread; you're really not entitled to be so familiar, ausbike, especially as you completely ignored my post of Sun Jul 14, 2013 1:00 pm where I invited you to air your grievances in a more open manner. More importantly, you say I "targeted" the seller. This is untrue. It is libelous. It'd be best you withdraw that comment and apologise for making it the first place, don't you think?

Also, I know a little about copyright and your exhortations about supposed copyright breaches on this site are quite ridiculous. In any event, you don't present yourself here as the copyright holder, so with what authority do you make these demands? On whose behalf?

And the following, coming from a mysterious poster with an undeclared interest in the matter is too comical for words;

May TTar/Admin display a written permission from any of the copyright owners to allow you to host their photos on another site.

For a start, the Admin and I are two different people, but ausbike, seriously, unless you're the copyright holder or you're representing the copyright holder you have no business making such a request. Not only are you wasting the admin's time, you're wasting your own time.

Finally, for someone so concerned with "written permission", let me ask you; does the seller have a property release from the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority permitting their use of Darling Harbour for the purposes of commercial photography?

[Summernight]

Oh darn. I seem to have run out of popcorn.

I also concur with TTAr. It seems a re-read of copyright law may be in order for 'some' people before throwing out strong words like 'stealing'.

Also K-Mart or the bike brand themselves may be interested to know about their items being sold without key features like... Oh, the correct bike branding/origin being displayed.

Now, where are my chill pills?

[K2]

Um, has anyone else ever had the time to engage in a discussion with those random folk who call from "Windows" to kindly assist with your computer problems?

If you have, does this thread seem to have slipped into the same sort of surreal territory to you?

You are all so, so much nicer than me.

I think it's fairly obvious that Jenny from the mysterious non-affiliated user forum has her hands full enough as a coordinator who fails to comprehend links in posts (among many other things apparently), and with the barrow she's so desperately trying to push up that very steep hill. So in keeping with the spirit in which this thread's been conducted -

Good luck with all that Jenny, and welcome to BNA.

[thomashouseman]

Finally, for someone so concerned with "written permission", let me ask you; does the seller have a property release from the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority permitting their use of Darling Harbour for the purposes of commercial photography?

Yes: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... 02/s4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Section 4 (1)(b)

[jasonc]

Oh darn. I seem to have run out of popcorn.

[TTar]

Where's your "written permission" from the copyright holder to display this image, jasonc?

[jasonc]

Where's your "written permission" from the copyright holder to display this image, jasonc?

here's another one:



EDIT: This has me written all over it

[Ignoto]

- You are shifting the subject, we are not talking the images elsewhere, the ones here are what I am talking about. On the first post, TTar is not posting a text link to the image, the actual image was posted to form part of the page. Maybe your computer does not display images, I believe most of the world does. You need copyright owner's permission to do that. Read the copyright legislation before your reply, thanks.

TTAR did post a text link to the image, it was the direct text. The forum software has the functionality to take a image link and replace the url as the image. It's exactly the same as the link being placed there and you clicking/hovering over it. If there was an actual infringement TTAR/BNA would be covered by the very copyright legislation you raise, you should check in particular Sections 41 and 41A of the Copyright Act.

The infringement is solely at Gumtree's end/the user who uploaded it. So perhaps you should direct your time and effort with them to remove it?