EBAY Flaunts Federal Law and #METOO - WHY?

Today, the headlines are about RESPECTING WOMEN. 

It's about ending degrading, humiliating sexual abuse. It's about treating women fairly. Ebay has "offensive materials" rules...but doesn't find ABUSING WOMEN offensive.

What do they find offensive? THIS they do NOT find OFFENSIVE: Cutting the heads of famous women and Photoshopping them onto porn images, and even suggesting these things are real: 

The cheap, nasty seller if this garbage, who pimps and degrades famous women to get a lousy $4, has been warned a few times because managers/agents for some stars have sent in DMCA's. 

Obviously it hasn't been enough to get EBAY to SUSPEND this seller. EBAY phone support routinely says, "Oh, this is offensive, this is against our rules." But this is some hapless woman in Asia who can only "forward this to Trust and Safety" or "it will go to Risk Management." And that's where the buck goes down the toilet, and whoever is in charge shrugs and says "so what. Let these women be abused. They're famous. They deserve it." Something like that.

WORSE, eBay also allows HACKED and STOLEN pictures. We all know that Jennifer Lawrence's photos were stolen. EBAY, "just a venue" pretends otherwise. They don't ask a seller to show a signed model release of age and consent, or an agreement with Lawrence. 

The common sense they use in removing a photo of KKK Klansmen pointing to a black man hanging from a tree...they don't apply to abuses of women. The images here have been censored because, unlike the Photoshop fakes, these are real: 

These things should not be sold by some sociopathic pinhead who wants $4 (after Paypal and EBAY take their cuts, and the fun of being a pimp and selling garbage to potentially dangerous stalkers.

EBAY NEEDS TO BAN PHOTOSHOP IMAGES OF CELEBRITIES, HACKED IMAGES OF CELEBRITIES, and NOT EXPECT CELEBRITIES TO KNOW ABOUT THEIR SECRET "ADULTS ONLY" PART OF THE WEBSITE AND FIND THIS JUNK AND SEND IN A DMCA.

It's not just celebrities that are being abused. ANY woman who ever took a selfie might find that image being SOLD ON EBAY. EBAY does NOT COMPLY with FEDERAL LAW which requires sellers to have SIGNED MODEL RELEASES OF AGE AND CONSENT. For example: 

NOTHING in the ad suggests there's a "signed model release on file" (which is a statement you find on the editorial page of every sex magazine, on the box cover of every DVD, and on every adult website). 

EBAY is irresponsibly NOT making sure that sellers who grind photos through their printers, or spend all day drooling over them in a darkroom, can provide, under penalty of perjury, a signed model release for their items.

EBAY is strangely silent on the issue of WOMEN'S RIGHTS. 

After Peter Braunstein assaulted a co-worker he barely even knew, and led police on a manhunt for weeks, EBAY changed their policy on selling CHLOROFORM on their site. He had bought some on EBAY, as well as a real fireman's badge and uniform, rope and sexual toys, for his night of terror.

Somehow, EBAY does have rules about what is "offensive." It just doesn't apply to ANY of the ABOVE. 

Here's what EBAY finds offensive: 

Really? "Sexual intolerance" can't be defined as allowing women their PRIVACY? THEIR DIGNITY? Anyone famous, from Hillary Clinton to Melania Trump gets defiled by their sexuality and not their politics? Any female star, especially ones who NEVER appeared nude (TAYLOR SWIFT, EMMA WATSON) has to be degraded because a few men are misogynists? Haters? Jealous and sadistic sociopaths? 

EBAY has enough sense to ban a lot of items (prescription drugs, lock picking equipment, digital download versions of books, used underwear) but doesn't have "bots" to enforce all of it. They rely on people to see things and use the "report item" link on the auction. Often, the item isn't stopped because "we have millions of items every day and can't get to them all. Feel free to report it again." But to not even have an "offensive materials" or "adult: not allowed" category that specifically bans the abusive images above? WHO IS RUNNING EBAY?

Here's some of the "offensive materials" eBay will stop...usually within 24 or 48 hours: 

Shouldn't hacked photos, unlicensed amateur photos, and Photoshop fakes be banned? Aren't they in violation of FEDERAL LAW?

Elsewhere on this site, you'll find entries that show some of the other awful images sellers have profited from offering on EBAY, as well as the exact FEDERAL LAW that requires MODEL RELEASES, and which EBAY IGNORES.

What does EBAY want before they get MORALITY and obey FEDERAL LAW? Another PETER BRAUNSTEIN?

What do you think of somebody who isolates freeze-frames of celebrities...and SELLS THEM? 

Peeping JPAULCELEBPHOTOS carves and slashes through copyrighted movies, looking for moments when an actress is briefly nude. Then he sells these freeze-frames. He has no permission to do this. Ebay has let him get away with it. 

Are they waiting for this guy to be in the headlines for sociopathic, misogynistic hate crimes against women? Or are they waiting for one of his BUYERS to be on the front page? 

Isn't it DANGEROUS and FOOLISH to let sellers offer Photoshop fakes, freeze-frames, and "amateur" nudes of women that are actually revenge porn shots downloaded off websites? Why isn't EBAY responsible enough to have a "REPORT ITEM" link that says: "Adult images without model releases, Celebrity intrusion of privacy, offensive image intended to degrade and humiliate"? 

Some years ago, PETER BRAUNSTEIN assaulted a woman...tying her up and terrorizing her, with chloroform he bought on EBAY. Is that what it took for EBAY to decide that dangerous chemicals should NOT be sold on the site? 

Celebrities routinely get Photoshop nude images mailed to them, and people coming up to them at memorabilia shows and signings, too: "Here, sign this for me. Hey, maybe you'd like to get naked for me at your hotel? I know which hotel you are staying in...." 

EBAY sellers routinely sell Photoshop fakes as REAL. Despite the #METOO movement, they show off their hatred of women, and their craven need to dominate any famous woman by selling deliberately degrading fakes, or hacked images, peep upskirt images, and anything else to make a buck and make themselves the Super Pimp and the celebrity the slave. 

Below, many examples of the crude abuse women are getting on EBAY. While EBAY has an "offensive materials" rule so that sellers can't offer morgue photos, atrocity photos, pictures of triumphant Nazis or KKK members degrading blacks and Jews...WOMEN are considered a justifiable target. 

The "JOCUR" is still wild

According to eBay's phone support ladies, many of the troublesome misogynists that they report...get chance after chance to come back and be rotten. 

"Oh yes, we've gotten a lot of complaints on this one...several restrictions...the seller was suspended for a while. This seller will most certainly get another warning..." For breaking Federal Law? Shouldn't eBay take FEDERAL LAW MORE SERIOUSLY?

This repeat offender, some kind of sociopath who can't stop abusing and degrading women for a few dollars, does NOT have MODEL RELEASES OF AGE AND CONSENT. IF a woman has NOT CONSENTED that's a CRIME. 

We're talking about not just celebrities being Photoshopped, or having their images freeze-framed and sold without their knowledge. We're talking about HACKING computers, STEALING pictures and REVENGE PORN.

Does this woman know that the "JOCUR" is wild about selling her image without her knowledge? Nowhere in the ad does he say he has a signed model release from her (or a thousand others he sells). Just crap about "sold collector to collector." EBAY, can you also sell heroin that way? "Collector to collector?"

Why is it that you have rules against KKK and NAZI material being sold on your site, but YOU DO NOT PROTECT WOMEN? 

The first image? What's the cruel "logic" here? That if a woman poses like that for her boyfriend, it's HER fault if he breaks up with her and throws the image all over the Internet? 

The second image? What's the cruel "logic" here? That Natalie Portman is a STAR, so let's take her down a peg? Let's Photoshop her image and degrade and humiliate her for being successful? 

The bottom line is that after all this time, EBAY still does NOT have a "report item" category for: ADULT -- photo without model release, celebrity Photoshop, or other similar abuse. WHY NOT?

Why is it the "JOCUR" is wild again, coming off restrictions and suspensions to do the same thing over and over? 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/75.2

RESPECTABLE pornographers (yes, indeed) not only make sure to have a SIGNED MODEL RELEASE OF AGE AND CONSENT on their websites, on the label of the DVD and on the inside front page of the magazine, they usually go FURTHER. They have a photo of the model holding up a driver's license or other means of identification, to PROVE the age and the real name. 

EBAY thinks being "just a venue" absolves them from FEDERAL LAW. Where is #METOO and "TIMES UP" to ask CEO Devin Wenig to STOP HUMILIATING AND DEGRADING WOMEN FOR FUN AND PROFIT? 

Given a second chance, and a third, and a fourth: weasels like JPAUL and PKC

"What we can do, if they ignore a warning, and if we warn them again, and if there's a patten of warnings," said one eBay employee in phone support, "is issue a restriction." 

And then? "Another restriction. They might only be allowed to post 100 nude images instead of 1000.   The restriction could last a day or a week. If the seller still ignores these warnings, the restriction could be for a month. Then suspension for a certain length of time. THEN...permanent suspension."

That's giving a LOT of tolerance to woman-haters.

Among them, is THIS seller, who eBay admits has a huge record of violations, and as posting hundreds and hundreds of Photoshop fakes including this: 

Ha ha. Sold as REAL, the heads of the three women in a reboot of "Charlie's Angels," now looking like they are happily running around naked. 

Not only is eBay letting a sociopath prosper, a potential sexual predator, somebody with no morals, but imagine who BUYS this crap? It's a potential stalker who thinks this junk is real. It's somebody with a warped mind. It's somebody who stands on line at a signing event, shoves the fake nude at the astonished and embarrassed celebrity and says "Sign this. I'd love to see you naked in person!" 

Ebay still doesn't have a "REPORT THIS" category for: "Photo sold without a model release of AGE OR CONSENT...including fake celebrity nudes, freeze-frames stolen from movies, and amateur pictures that could be revenge porn." 

THIS seller, also with a huge record of warnings, violations, and second and third and more chances, is a weasel who likes to isolate a nude scene intended to be artistic and to last a few seconds, and turn it into: "Now stare at Barbra Streisand naked. That's not a character she's playing. That's her. This is a copyrighted movie, but let's freeze and copy this moment...so I can make twelve bucks." 

Since Barbra's people are notorious for catching this kind of thing, the seller deliberately spells her last name wrong. Or, he could just be an illiterate jerk. 

Here's another picture where he admits that he's making copies of freeze frames. These aren't HIS copies. He downloads them off various 4Chan, Reddit, Weasel-type websites were guffawing guys who can't get laid spend their lives snickering over the pictures. Aha, what looks like a nipple-slip or SOMETHING that, if you blow up the image, and look carefully....

Note the watermark: DO NOT COPY. This creep copies off hundreds of these images, and if he remembers, puts DO NOT COPY on, in case some other weasel grabs the image off the ad and starts making copies, too. 

How does eBay justify the obvious theft from copyrighted movies? The obvious illegal duplication of nude images designed specifically to target women with unwanted attention? These women didn't make these films thinking their nude scenes would be taken out of context and SOLD to potentially dangerous morons, like the stalker who murdered Rebecca Schaeffer.

In the #metoo movement, the theme has been, "Hey, I was humiliated by Harvey Weinstein, too...I was degraded by Les Moonves, too..." and if five, ten, fifteen or more say so, then something happens. 

Ebay seems to have that same viewpoint: it will take MANY outcries before they listen. These two sellers should have gotten one or two warnings and SUSPENSION. This isn't bootlegging music or books. This is a form of sexual abuse. 

How TWITTER has more MORALITY than EBAY

EBAY's excuse for allowing this? 

"Gosh, we don't know if Daryl Hannah approved of this Photoshop fake or not." Er, we'd need Daryl Hannah to discover it, send in a DMCA form, and complain. Oh, and if the seller files a counter-notice, we'd have to put it back, and Daryl Hannah would have to find the seller and take him to court." 

Because..."WE ARE JUST A VENUE." Even though they have supposed rules against "offensive materials" and could interpret this as OFFENSIVE. 

There would be a 50-50 chance that if reported to "ADULT: Not Allowed at All" or "OFFENSIVE MATERIALS" somebody would say, "Right, that's offensive, that's not allowed, that's obviously a Photoshop fake intended to humiliate and degrade Darryl Hannah for a sexual thrill." Prurient interest, too, which is a definition of obscenity.  

TWITTER would remove that picture instantly, and restrict the poster from using their site: 

In fact,  TWITTER has hoops that prevent people from unlocking their account. They ONLY accept a cell number. The offender gives them the cell number, which then becomes knowledge around the world (doesn't it?) and TWITTER sends a code number via text message. Then the second chance is given. If the offender only has a landline, too bad. The offender will get form letters and then "case has been closed." 

Ebay's CEO Devin Wenig has yet to amend eBay's rules so that "offensive materials" specifically includes nude depictions of women posted "without a model release of age and consent." 

Somehow, TWITTER doesn't think "we're just a venue" and weak DMCA laws justifies nude images of women POSTED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

They would not use the Ebay excuse of "we can't contact our seller and ask to see their signed model release of age and consent because...we're JUST A VENUE." 

Instead, they let the seller continue to sell, even after multiple warnings and stoppages. As in, "How do we know that because a VeRO rep sent us a complaint on  ONE actress, that this seller doesn't have agreements with the others? And we're NOT going to ask, because....we're...JUST A VENUE." 

Is that SHABBY? 

This is the same eBay that has a rule (which is not a law) against women selling their used underwear. This is the same eBay that has a rule (which is not a law) against selling Nazi memorabilia, or a photo that "glorifies" the KKK. 

Minority groups are protected on eBay, most of the time, but women? How about protecting women (not just celebrities) against the sale of revenge porn? A woman makes the mistake of posing nude, the boyfriend secretly makes duplicates, and then the break-up comes, the boyfriend happily posts the pictures all over the Net. Some end up downloaded by eBay weasels and sold as "amateur photo" and "found photo" with NOTHING about "age and consent." 

But that's the "fun." The idea is to humiliate women and destroy their dignity and get even with them without their knowledge. It's far more "fun" than buying pictures of nude women who consent and even get paid to pose. 

The bureaucratic labyrinth of eBay is, that even in the best of times, "report item" can be ignored.  

Or as one low-level phone support eBay employee put it: "We get millions of auctions posted every minute and millions of complaints. Use "REPORT THIS ITEM" in the ad, and keep reporting it till somebody has the time to check it out." 

Yes? "REPORT THIS ITEM" to: Adult: not allowed at all, or to "Offensive Materials : something else?" Why not have a category for: "No model release of age or consent" or "Depicts a famous actress nude" or "Is selling a "found" picture of an unidentified woman who could be underage, or have had her photos hacked, or is the subject of revenge porn." 

TWITTER just shuts down the account. They don't allow THIS, which, like the Hannah picture, is on Ebay and ignored by "REPORT THIS ITEM." 

This seller, like the other one, has been stopped on items, but only "given warnings." 

Why is that? Because another eBay game THAT TWITTER DOESN'T PLAY, is to not shut down an account instantly, or keep it shut permanently after another violation. It's "we give a warning, and another warning, and another warning and if it keeps happening, we MAY restrict the account to only posting 100 items or less for a day. Then a week. Then a month..." 

#metoo complains if Al Franken's hand grazes a woman's waist when he's trying to navigate her for a selfie in a crowded room in front of her husband. They don't think that Taylor Swift deserves better than this? 

Ha ha ha, a fridge magnet for your MAN CAVE. Stuck up Taylor needs a vibrator stuck up her snatch. Your fantasy comes true with this home-made item. I got myself a magnet kit, and I can make a magnet out of anything. Ha ha ha. Ebay says Taylor Swift's VeRO rep would have to stop this, because they can't be sure I don't have a license, and THEY won't ask!! HA HA HA

PS, this is the same EBAY that will stop a seller for posting a movie "that we believe contains nudity which is not allowed..." This is the same EBAY that will stop an adult movie because "it violates our rule on depicting urination." Really? Annie Sprinkle movies that were made in the 70's? Nice to know that Trump's tape would be protected. 

An obvious Photoshop fake on Darryl Hannah, posted as REAL? CEO Devin Wenig has a problem stopping this?  TWITTER does NOT.