
Birkenstock CEO accuses Amazon of ‘modern-day piracy’ - kgwgk
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/birkenstock-ceo-accuses-amazon-of-modern-day-piracy/2017/07/25/24fa7644-7086-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.40914f0db30c
======
doe88
Counterfeiting is a real issue on Amazon, I understand the appeal of what
Birkenstock is trying to achieve : _if you see a product labelled Birkenstock
on Amazon it 's likely counterfeit, don't buy_. Sometimes it is worth playing
the long game and in this case I think he is right to protect its brand above
all else.

~~~
andreasklinger
Similar issue: Buying apple headphones on amazon

>All< of them are fake

~~~
cjsuk
My daughter got bitten by this. Contacted Amazon and they refunded. Still
selling them though!

~~~
kbart
_" Contacted Amazon and they refunded. Still selling them though!"_

That's the most annoying thing about Amazon. Even if you report obviously
counterfeit item, they still continue to sell it. I don't get it, how this can
be legal and why nobody sued them yet? Compare that to draconian DCMA actions,
where the slightest suspicion can get your site blocked for good..

~~~
CWuestefeld
I think folks misunderstand the Amazon data model. It appears that Product
represents a thing that can be sold. But beneath that there's something like a
SellerItem, which represents a given Product as sourced from a particular
Seller.

If Amazon is notified of a counterfeit Product, the correct action is NOT to
remove the Product. There's no reason to think that there's anything wrong
with that SKU (it's got the right description, part#, media assets, reviews,
and everything).

The problem is the SellerItem - they ought to do something about the naughty
seller who's trying to pass off the counterfeit item as if it's the actual
Product.

Thus, even if Amazon nukes the offending Seller, the Product will still appear
on the site. But one would hope that the offending seller is not listed as one
of the choices for fulfilling the order.

Now, Amazon's apparent willingness to treat on-hand inventory from all Sellers
as fungible is another problem...

~~~
kbart
Why should I even care about their data model as a costumer? If any other
seller would pull a trick like this: "sorry, my supplier provided counterfeit
items - I have nothing to do with it", they would be f-cked anyway. If Amazon
stores, Amazon sells, Amazon ships then Amazon _is_ responsible. Try to order
some counterfeit iPhones from China and sell them on local market. When
authorities come, give them an excuse: "look, it's an Apple logo on it and
supplier told it's really iPhone, it's not my fault this item is counterfeit"
and tell us how it went.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Yes, of course. What I'm trying to explain is why it doesn't make sense to
expect Amazon to completely expunge all references to a given Product simply
because one Seller has been shown to offer counterfeit instances of it.

~~~
Spooky23
If they lack the ability to isolate inventory originating from untrustworthy
sources or adequately manage its supplier relationships, then yes.

This will blow up in their face when a bunch of preschoolers die when a fake
iPad charger or battery burns the school down.

------
brudgers
This shows why I have come to use Amazon less and less over the years...no
it's not the "piracy" bullshit. It's that Amazon is buying up goods at full
retail and then marking them up and counting on my ignorance and impulse to
turn a profit.

In short, Amazon shopping has become adversarial. Its website is premised on
dark patterns. That's why its search sucks and prices and terms change on the
fly. Look how noisy Amazon's web page is, how long the delays are, and how far
down the page important discriminating information...like the product
description...is buried. In particular, Prime is designed to confuse the value
proposition. It mixes in differential pricing, video on demand, and shipping.
A person can't look at it and determine how Amazon makes money off of Prime.
Having had Prime, the obvious way it profits is algorithmically. It just shows
me more products that are cheaper elsewhere.

~~~
euroclydon
Amazon isn't an online retailer. It's something else. They don't have
inventory, not in the sense that anyone can understand it. They do represent
sellers (including themselves) of items, ostensibly categorized, but the
search results are infuriating.

I was trying to buy school supplies, of which they had prominently linked
categories, since it's that time of year. But when I searched for some package
of paper, binders, or pencils, if I sorted by price, it included so many wrong
products, then I never knew how to just find the best price for a given SKU.
Combine that with downright scary results, I'm only left with scanning for
reassuring logo's like Prime X and Prime Y.

It's a bazar full of hucksters.

[Edit] Also, I'm a Prime member, and buy everything I can there. Just the
other day, I needed ink for by Brother printer. The brother ink was three
times as much as the knock off. I really like Brother the company, and I
wanted to buy their ink, but the budget that month was tight. So I went with
the knock off. It's working fine.

~~~
DigitalBison
Can you go into more detail on what you mean by "they don't have inventory"?

~~~
euroclydon
I mean they don't have "inventory" in the dictionary definition of the word. I
search for items, and they will sell or fulfill an order that I click on, but
the results are a confusing list of pseudo-similar things.

It's just like searching the internet for a product, not like buying from a
store.

It would be like if I went into Target, and rather than an organized
collection of products, it was a flea market with real and knock-off items
lumped together in big piles all around the floor. And then a bunch of helpful
employees to get me checked out real fast when I made a decision.

------
blunte
Considering the trouble other companies/sites have gotten into just by
allowing _links_ to pirated goods and services (particularly audio video
content), I cannot fathom why Amazon hasn't been slammed for hosting and
selling so much obvious counterfeit goods.

~~~
revelation
Hosting, selling and _shipping_.

How Amazon has not been bankrupted by suits is beyond me. _They_ receive my
money, _they_ ship the item from _their_ warehouse. They can tell tales all
day but there simply is no third party anywhere close to this transaction.

~~~
nerdponx
Too big to fail.

~~~
bluejekyll
This term was used for the banks. It implied that were they to fail, the
economic fallout would be a disaster. I think it was also used for the
American big three auto companies (two of which got a bailout).

I don't think Amazon is in that category, do you? AWS definitely for the
computing industry, but for sales like these it seems like it would be a boon
for local retailers.

~~~
nerdponx
You are right, of course. But I'm cynical. The banks _themselves_ were too big
to fail. But their executives and directors were/are not "too big to jail",
yet most of them walk free today.

Amazon is increasingly woven into the fabric of our economy. How long before
it truly is too "big" (read: has installed enough shills in government) to
fail, or too big to punish? They would be following in the great traditions
laid by oil companies, auto makers, telcos, and of course banks.

Case in point:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14865112](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14865112)

~~~
mistermann
I'm surprised this comment is downvoted, with the obvious and blatant
criminality Amazon knowingly engages in being pointed out by several other
commenters, this seems like one of the better explanations of why there has
been essentially no legal problems with the government. Jeff Bezos is an
incredibly smart guy, I suspect he realized very early on that having these
bases covered is absolutely crucial to success.

~~~
nerdponx
Slightly OT, I'm surprised at downloading here in general. People seem to
abuse it as an "I disagree" button.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Down-voting for disagreement was specifically countenanced by pg, as I learnt
when I complained in the past.

Here's an example post about this topic:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3760275](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3760275).

I still think it's broken. A slight fix would be to only grey-out flagged
comments and use a separate (or no) way of indicating a comment is down-voted.
Grouping poor comments so tightly with unpopular comments is moronic IMO.

------
JohnTHaller
Counterfeit goods are routinely sold as legitimate on Amazon. It's the same
listing as the legit product, too, just a different seller. Or it used to be.
Since Amazon started intermingling their own inventory with Chinese
counterfeit sellers, you have no idea whether you will get the real thing you
ordered or a fake until you receive it regardless of which seller you order
from.

~~~
jschwartzi
This is why I've stopped buying batteries on Amazon. Everything I get for my
phone is counterfeit.

------
sevensor
My running tally of reportedly counterfeit goods received from Amazon:

* Consumer electronics

* Hobby electronics

* Footwear for aging hippies

* Fashion footwear

* Books (!)

* Perfume

* Clothing

* Pet accessories

* Bicycle accessories

It doesn't seem to be hurting their business one bit.

~~~
claudiulodro
I've heard a lot about people getting counterfeit books on Amazon. How does
that work? Are the contents of the book the same as the legit version but it's
been printed by a 3rd party?

~~~
JosephLark
> Are the contents of the book the same as the legit version but it's been
> printed by a 3rd party?

In the case I dealt with, yes.

You can see some example here: [https://artofelectronics.net/the-
book/counterfeit-editions/](https://artofelectronics.net/the-book/counterfeit-
editions/)

------
dalbasal
There are a whole bunch of issues discussed here in paralel. Most, like all
the back-channel stuff, are contractual issues and aren't really relevant to
the consumer. Consumers can benefit from Amazon seeking product back channels.

Trademark violation (counterfeiting) is a different story. Unlike copyright or
patents, trademarks are not there to protect the "owner" of the trademark in
principle. It's there to protect consumers. You shouldn't be tricked into
buying at a fake amazon. You shouldn't be tricked into buying a fake Toyota.

Amazon's tolerance of counterfeits is (very possibly) harmful to consumers,
who can't reliably purchase the products they want.

Birkenstock have their own interests. One is competition from counterfeits.

The problem here is that this is a grey policy. If Amazon believes these
counterfeit products are valuable and customer friendly, then label them as
Birkenstock-imitaion or somesuch.

~~~
_fizz_buzz_
> Unlike copyright or patents, trademarks are not there to protect the "owner"
> of the trademark in principle. It's there to protect consumers.

That's not how trademarks work. A trademark is registered by the owner and the
trademark has to be defended by the owner. If someone sells something under
the brand name Birkenstock, it's not some consumer protection organization
that will sue, but it is up to the owner of the trademark to defend it. If
trademarks only existed to protect consumers, there would be different
mechanisms in place.

~~~
snowwrestler
Huge swaths of consumer protection are enforced through private lawsuits.
Don't confuse the mechanism with the policy goal.

Yes, it is up to trademark owners to defend their trademarks. But the reason
they are empowered to do so under the law is because the public has an
interest in feeling confident that they know who they are buying from.

~~~
_fizz_buzz_
Don't get hung up on my point about the mechanism. The general point is that
trademark law is a lot more like a property (protecting the owner) than a
consumer protection law. When I own a trademark, I can do anything I can do
with any property. I can use it myself, I can sell it to someone else, I can
license it someone else, I may even license it to someone that makes a
different product (with some restrictions). When you buy sunglasses with the
Versace trademark, you won't get anything produced by Versace or invented by
them or quality controlled by them, or with warranty from them.

------
bko
Nike faced a similar situation where they felt that they could not effectively
control their brand image so they pulled their products from Amazon. However,
the product was still around as many individual re-sellers listed Nike
products. So Nike ended up having even less control without having a
relationship with Amazon [0].

Counterfeits are one issue, but brands have to accept that they cannot control
distribution channels as they have in the past. Companies don't like to have
their products showcased against similar products, but that's inevitable.
Margins will shrink, and they'll just have to compete more on quality, value
and reliability. In the end, the consumer benefits. The only solution would be
to severely restrict what it means to own a product in a legal sense, which
would be very harmful to consumers who value ability to re-sell and donate
clothing.

[0] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-nike-resisted-amazons-
domin...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-nike-resisted-amazons-dominance-
for-years-and-finally-capitulated-1498662435) (paywall)

~~~
FussyZeus
> Nike faced a similar situation where they felt that they could not
> effectively control their brand image so they pulled their products from
> Amazon. However, the product was still around as many individual re-sellers
> listed Nike products. So Nike ended up having even less control without
> having a relationship with Amazon [0].

This brings an interesting point though; is it fair in the market for a
retailer/distributor to have such sway that _not_ selling with them becomes a
riskier proposition then selling with them? Isn't that the sort of thing that
we have anti-trust laws for?

~~~
bryanrasmussen
I suppose Nike could have a contract with their resellers requiring they not
sell Nike products on Amazon.

~~~
ikeboy
Virtually all Nike Amazon sellers weren't buying wholesale. They were buying
from Nike stores, Nike Outlet, clearance in other stores, etc.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
damn, that sounds like it would be a lousy business to be in. But I guess I'm
wrong because they did it?

~~~
ikeboy
Yes, I've heard from people with mid six figures of inventory in Nike.

The trick is not to pay full price, use discounted gift cards, rewards, etc.

I don't do clothing, but I've used similar techniques on many other
categories. Plenty of people have large businesses moving goods from retail to
Amazon.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
Ok - so any software/tools used in this? It seems like a niche that would be
underserved but wondering if there is stuff that is especially used in this
field.

What about stuff from Europe - is this mainly an American thing. sorry to be
asking about stuff that you probably only know a little bit about, but you
obviously know more about it than I do.

~~~
ikeboy
Yes, plenty of tools. Tactical arbitrage, oaxray are some popular ones at
$99/month.

I do some of that and some wholesale and try to stay informed on what others
are doing.

I know there's a tool called FBA Wizard used by some UK sellers, and tactical
arbitrage has UK support as well but I don't know that much.

I have bought stuff from amazon.co.uk and sold on amazon.com when the price
difference was large enough in the low 5 figure range, really just a handful
of products that I sold a bunch of.

------
agentgt
I think (but I'm hardly certain) if the cost of _fast_ shipping is reduced and
provided for all companies we might start to see some downfall of Amazon.

More and more I'm buying directly from companies websites. Its often cheaper,
the service is often better, and the overall shopping experience can often be
easier than Amazon (comparing products and colors on Amazon is a nightmare).
The only real issue is not having 2 day shipping.

This is why I think Amazon is investing so much in there own label/brand. If
shipping is fast and cheap and most companies have a good ecommerce system and
It was all aggregated (aka google) nicely why would I buy from Amazon?

For so long people have said lower price is what drives sales. That people go
where the lowest price is. I'm starting to think immediacy is now the higher
priority. When I need baby wipes ... I needed them yesterday.... and I need
them to work and be the correct ones.

------
tmnvix
> Kahan added that he is considering legal action against Amazon.com for
> “knowingly encouraging a breach of our policy.”

This seems like a very weak argument.

For context, Kahan was referring to Amazon's offer to purchase retailers'
Birkenstock products. Birkenstock do not sell to Amazon and forbid any of
their stockists from supplying resellers.

~~~
will_brown
Why is that a weak argument and not a valid cause of action for _tortious
interference with a business relationship /contract_?

~~~
peteretep

        > Tortious interference with business
        > relationships occurs where the tortfeasor
        > intentionally acts to prevent someone from
        > successfully establishing or maintaining business
        > relationships with others
    

So you'd have to show that the action had stopped the business relationship
being maintained, which seems a stretch.

Further:

    
    
        > acts improperly with malicious intent and
        > actually interferes with the contract/expectancy,
        > causing economic harm
    

This also isn't something I'd want to spend time and money arguing with
Amazon's legal team over, which is presumably why they're just "considering"
it, rather than doing it.

~~~
eridius
> _So you 'd have to show that the action had stopped the business
> relationship being maintained_

According to the article, Birkenstock policy is if anybody sells their
Birkenstocks to Amazon, then they'll be blacklisted and will never receive
another pair of Birkenstocks ever again. That sure sounds like Amazon's action
stopping a business relationship from being maintained.

~~~
peteretep
Your opinion clearly differs from mine, but I struggle to see any of the
examples the law is meant to target as being similar. Amazon's not stopping
the business relationship from being maintained, Birkenstock is via their
arbitrary agreements. If anything, I'd see Amazon as having a strong case that
Birkenstock are interfering in their relationship with their sellers.

~~~
eridius
What do you mean by "arbitrary agreements"? Denigrating their policy as
"arbitrary" sure makes it sound like you're biased.

I'm sure that once Amazon started reaching out to sellers to buy Birkenstocks,
they were told about Birkenstock policy. If they continue reaching out to
sellers after learning that (and it appears as though they did) then I would
think you can make a good case that Amazon is deliberately interfering with
the sellers' relationships with Birkenstock, because Amazon knows that if
they're successful in convincing a seller to sell their stock to Amazon then
the seller will be blacklisted by Birkenstock.

That said, IANAL, so I have no idea if this case would actually be successful
if brought to suit. But it looks to me as though it has a chance.

------
quadrangle
This is fascinating. It's a (possibly too late) push back against a growing
monopoly/monopsony but the approach is a heavy-handed rejection of First Sale
doctrine and the positive aspects of open markets.

Trademark should suffice, if enforced well, for customers getting the right
products.

On the other hand, a world in which absolutely everything is available at
Amazon and most shoppers use it exclusively will be a terrifying one where
Amazon will have true tyrannical power over the market.

~~~
distances
This is not a rejection of the first sale doctrine. This is about Birkenstock
being free to choose their distributors. End users are of course free to sell
their own shoes, and Birkenstock is free to choose for which retailers it will
provide its stock.

~~~
quadrangle
All Amazon needs to do is get someone to go to a Birkenstock store and buy
sandals and then sell them through Amazon. That's not the store selling to
Amazon, it's selling to some customer who happens to then resell them on
Amazon.

The first-sale doctrine applies when Birkenstock is asking stores to figure
out how to control what customers do with the sandals after they are sold.

~~~
eridius
Birkenstock isn't asking stores to figure out how to control what customers
are doing. The problem is Amazon is approaching the stores themselves and
attempting to buy out their inventory. This has nothing to do with customers
deciding to sell their purchased shoes to Amazon.

------
phreeza
In this day and age, for items which do not operate on razor thin margins
(like I imagine Birkenstocks are) I don't understand why there isn't a
technical solution to this. Slap a unique qr code on every item leaving your
plant, and have vendors check that code against your database every time they
get new stock. Seems to me everybody wins? Which player is incentivised
against this?

~~~
kbart
Look at Amazon warehouse photos[0] and try to imagine how long it would take
to scan _every single item_ out there. Also, what happens when 1000 items have
the same QR code? Do you inspect every of them individually to determine which
one is genuine? Or do you discard everything, genuine products included?

0\. [http://thefrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/enhanced-
buzz...](http://thefrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/enhanced-buzz-
wide-10564-1417008855-13.jpg)

~~~
phreeza
Surely they scan the SKU on every item at some point anyway?

~~~
kbart
I'm not familiar with Amazon internals enough, but I doubt they keep SKU for
every _individual item_ , maybe for categories or types, so i.e. all the
headphones of the same model has the same SKU. Then it's enough to scan a
single code on crate/bin/pallet which makes things far easier, but it's not
sufficient to track down individual counterfeits.

------
heisenbit
eCommerce is all about cutting out the middle men. The only way goods can be
sold in shops is if the shop is making enough money. The margin needs to be
there to support space and people. Which means the distributors can't be
allowed to have a big margin - if the had big ones they are tempted to do big
sales to the like of Amazon undercutting individual shops. Which makes the
role of traditional middle men tough. Also the fewer steps in the distribution
the more commercial and contractual power the producer (provided a unique
product) has.

It is a war - product brands vs. platform brands. For the former controlling
distribution is key.

------
thrillgore
If there really is a piracy issue, why isn't ICE doing its job and
investigating Amazon's suppliers? They can't just be handling immigration
matters all day.

------
point78
Amazon.com as of writing my comment has tens of models listed. If birkenstock
pulled their product how is Amazon allowed to list this?

~~~
thiagocsf
If Amazon can get their hands on stock, nothing stops them selling them. At
least I believe there's no law against it.

~~~
bluejekyll
What about counterfeit stock? Isn't Amazon liable for that?

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Yes, if someone buys the product and it turns out to be counterfeit, they can
sue Amazon. But Birkenstock can't sue Amazon for selling legitimate
Birkenstock products, and no one (so far) has been able to force an audit of
Amazon warehouses to prove that their stock is legitimate.

The problem is that Amazon can fall back on the possibility of unofficial
resellers of hypothetically genuine Birkenstock goods - you or me walking into
the mall, buying a pair of Birkenstocks, and reselling them on Amazon. This,
obviously, isn't an efficient business model: You or I paying list price,
adding our markup for our expenses and profit, and Amazon's profit demand that
we find a way to get them at less than the price on the sticker at the mall to
have a competitive price (or we just list them on Amazon at higher than list
for people who want to NOT go to a Birkenstock shop and would instead prefer
to have them appear on their doorstep...just saying...). Hypothetically, we
could find them on sale, or go to the shop owner and get them at near
wholesale prices under the table, or the shop owner could list them himself.
Of course, the other hypothetical way we could make this business work is to
make our own fake Birkenstocks and send those to Amazon.

Amazon is just throwing their hands up and claiming they aren't responsible
for determining which of these is the case. And I honestly don't understand
why Birkenstock isn't able to bring them to court, get a warrant to check
their warehouses, and prove that the goods they have are counterfeit. After
this, they could either go for monetary damages and try to incentivize Amazon
to self-police for fear of a repeat suit, or they could see if the judge is
willing to force Amazon to stop listing products under the Birkenstock name.

------
hari_sem3
We operate a powerful brand tracking system to monitor branded products sold
on Amazon. If you're a brand looking to protect your products, check out
www.semantics3.com

------
losteverything
I find it amusing thay the first time i could not read a wapo article free
from HN was now: about a negative Amazon article.

So... Wsj.. Wapo and nyt (paywall me)

~~~
tmnvix
For the Washington Post and New York Times a new incognito session solves that
problem.

~~~
moocowtruck
another option, open up dev console. go to settings and click disable
javascript. all the content shows and none of the ad/bs crying crap does not

------
samirillian
That reminds me, I need some Birks. To the store locator!

~~~
undersuit
How do you know if the brick and mortar store has real Birkenstocks? You
essentially have to buy Birkenstocks from the producing company, or the store
could open up their finances so you could see the receipt of the store buying
directly from Birkenstock.

------
morsch
Readily available on Amazon.de, from Amazon itself and from third party shoe
sellers. Just saying. Quite a bit cheaper than in the US, too (sample size =
1).

~~~
breakingcups
You mean the counterfeits?

~~~
morsch
I have no reason to believe they are counterfeits. Their shoes are 20% cheaper
in Germany even when you buy from the official store.

I think Birkenstock just has a different relationship with the German Amazon
subsidiary. It's also conceivable that limiting the resale in the way they do
in the US is simply not legal in Germany.

------
marksomnian
The whole "let's not sell our products on Amazon because of counterfeits"
seems exceedingly silly to me.

The only people who will know about it are your "hardcore" buyers, those who
keep up with everything to do with your company. To the average buyer, if the
official products aren't up, all that'll do is give more exposure to the
counterfeits than before, because the legitimate goods aren't there to soak up
that exposure.

If anything, if they're scared of counterfeits, they should have listed the
genuines even more aggressively, to get more of the views that would have gone
to the counterfeits.

~~~
cleansy
> If anything, if they're scared of counterfeits, they should have listed the
> genuines even more aggressively, to get more of the views that would have
> gone to the counterfeits.

It's ultimately the responsibility of the market place to ensure that illegal,
possibly trademark breaching products are not on sale. That is their job.
Amazon failed, and continues to fail to do that. From this perspective I can
understand why makers don't want Amazon to sell their stuff. Which may raise
enough attention to finally do more against counterfeits.

In the end, it benefits us all.

~~~
sgift
If the products are actual counterfeits (which are illegal) it's the job of
the law to block them from being sold. If it's just "we don't like comparable
products near ours ..." then I don't see why that's Amazons responsibility
either.

------
amyjess
That "modern-day piracy" crack is terribly offensive, and it's going to
backfire in his face. "Piracy on the high seas" is _still_ a thing. People
have been murdered, tortured, starved to near-death, and used as human shields
by Somali pirates.

To equate Amazon exercising the right of first sale by buying and reselling
shoes to the violence perpetrated by Somali pirates is an insult to the
survivors of actual piracy and to the families of anyone who was murdered by
Somali pirates.

~~~
kstrauser
I used to believe that, too, until I learned that "piracy" as slang for
"copyright infringement" dates to 1603: [http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-
editions/yeare.html](http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-editions/yeare.html)

You are (and I was) 400 years out of date. That ship has sailed.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Um, I thought the Statue of Anne was considered the first copyright, in 1700
and something?

I'm not sure from a cursory look that the Word-Pirate is anything other than a
"hack"?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Statute!

------
sametmax
Their making overpriced sandals and are now surprised everyone can do the
same, for cheaper, and get a piece of their pie. Well, doh.

~~~
dalbasal
If you can do the same for cheaper, great. You can't pretend that _you are_
Birkenstock. You can make up your own name, call them Birkenstock-like
sandals, home brand sandals, whatever you want.

Birkenstock is apparently complaining about " _counterfeit products and
unauthorized sellers._ " Those are two very different things.

Unauthorized reselling is legal, counterfeiting is not. These are good laws.
One helps consumers, the other harms them.

-This message was written by sametmax

~~~
Kluny
> -This message was written by sametmax

...que?

~~~
gpderetta
dalbasal was making a point.

