Violin? We don’t need no stinkin’ violin!

Greetings and Salutations!

Why do I think that the entire world is going insane? Well, there are a number of reasons, but, I just read a story online that I had to check from several sources to make sure that it was not some sort of a sick hoax. Read the story here but, I would suggest that, if you have any appreciation of fine instruments, history or music, that you take a tranquilizer first! In short, this was an Ebay transaction, paid for through their cash arm, Paypal. A buyer purchased a violin that was of pre-World War 2 vintage. The seller had, apparently, had it authenticated by a luthier and so had written the description of the instrument in good faith. When the buyer got the violin, he (I am assuming) apparently decided that it was a modern, Chinese instrument, and not worth the $2500.00 he had paid for it. So, he filed a claim with PayPal. Paypal did what they always do – they froze the seller’s account, and grabbed the money back. They really like doing that because it gets them a chunk of change they can use for free! Then, though, (and this is where it starts to go really nuts), they told the buyer that if he wanted his money back he had to destroy the instrument and send them photographic proof he had done so! No sending it back to the seller at their expense or anything like that. The above link has a pretty horrific picture of the pile of debris left from the destruction.

This was so bad on so many levels it is hard to know where to start the rant…. However, that never stops me, of course! First off, how many of YOU knew that Paypal had added a clause to their (increasingly convoluted) terms for reimbursement that said they could require the destruction of the item in dispute? I certainly did not! The last time I did the Ebay/Paypal thing, the rule was that if there was a dispute, the seller had to take back the item, and, pay the shipping for that pleasure. This clause opens the door for so much abuse that there is hardly enough disk space in the world to detail it! Then, there is the fact that Paypal ordered the destruction of an item that they likely had NO knowledge of. From the beginning Paypal has been nothing more than a money laundering operation that skimmed a bit off the top to make a (huge) profit. They not only have no knowledge about topics outside that single focus on money, but, they have, in the past, been very clear about the fact that they were nothing but a transaction broker and any discussion about the goods was not their problem. So, have they hired a professional luthier to be on staff and evaluate claims about stringed instruments? Or, perhaps, a recognized expert in the field of antique musical instruments? I suspect not. Actually, from the discussions and reports of this event that I have read, it sounds as if they would be just as happy to require the destruction if the buyer had bought a painting by Matisse but an original Picasso or Rembrandt had shown up instead. Along with all this, there is the fact that, unless proven otherwise, this was, indeed a fairly old instrument that had some history to it. It was also a real violin, which means that it was likely playable, and, more than likely had a better tonal quality and feel than many modern instruments. Frankly, unless it was in such bad shape that it was totally unplayable, the fact that the buyer paid $2500.00 for it means that he likely got quite a bargain. The day that a person could walk down to the music store and buy a decent violin for $50.00 is LONG gone. Even crappy, clapped out instruments that will not hold tension for more than a movement tend to go for $100.00 or more these days.

So, how would I "fix" the problem? Well, there is nothing to be done for this particular instrument. What it could give to musicians has been lost forever and a piece of history has been destroyed for no reason at all. However, for the future, I would suggest that Paypal remove that destruction clause from its user agreement, and simply require that the product be returned to the seller, at the seller’s expense. If the seller chooses not to accept this, then, it should be ok for the buyer to dispose of the item as they see fit. When the item is either returned, or abandoned by the seller, Paypal should issue the refund to the buyer. Paypal, though, should not have a hand in that resolution process beyond making sure that the cash ends up in the correct hands. I think that Paypal has grown to a point, and produced so many consumer complaints, that it needs to be put under the same regulations that the banking industry is under. It is making too much money, and, is treating consumers in far too high-handed a fashion, to escape regulation, as it has all these years.

I will say, in passing, that I have some experience buying and selling on Ebay, and using Paypal, and, in general, I have had little trouble with either of them. However, the one time I filed a complaint with Paypal, I was denied and was out $75 or so. In that case, a seller did not ship a tape drive I had been high bidder on, and, had canceled his phone and email contacts so I could not discuss it with him. I sent an email to Paypal’s complaints resolution address, then, three weeks later got an email back saying they had changed their process and I had to go to a web page and fill it out to file a complaint.. In the Email they even were quite apologetic about not notifying me sooner about this change in the complaint resolution process. I did so, and a week or so later got an email from them saying that my complaint had been denied because I had not filed it soon enough after the transaction! This annoyed me no end, of course, because some of that time had been spent trying to contact the seller and resolve the situation. A big chunk of the delay had been THEIR fault because they had not notified me in a timely fashion about the change in the complaint resolution process. I sent them a lengthy email detailing this, but, alas, got no reply. I did try to search out a telephone number for them, but, this was several years ago, and they were very careful not to allow that to get onto the web. It left a bad taste in my mouth about Paypal and Ebay that lasts to this day.

There has been some discussion in various forums about how it would be possible for a buyer to defraud a seller by shipping back trash instead of the item. My response to that is "well, how do businesses deal with that today?" It is very simple…the business either documents what they got returned to them (as opposed to what was supposed to be shipped) and denies the refund, or, goes ahead and allows the refund and writes it off to the cost of doing business. Of course, that customer gets on a list of folks that are no longer welcome to purchase from the business too! When Ebay was created, it was a very different place than it is now. it really was a venue for casual sales between individuals, and, there was a sense of community and trust that made it work well enough. I remember a number of conversations I had with folks saying how strange it was that I would casually send off a money order to a complete stranger, with nothing but faith that I would get something back. However, with the exception of that ONE instance, it always worked. In a way, it was like Ebay was a smallish town. Now, though, Ebay has grown to the point that it is more like New York City…and so there are a lot more hookers, pushers, muggers and scam artists around now. Also, a vast majority of the "people" selling on the venue are not people at all, but, actual businesses, and, like most businesses, they are not your friend and they are not automatically trustworthy. As with any big city, where too many people live too close together, one has to watch one’s step now. It can be a safe experience, but, there are far more opportunities for disaster.

Because of this event, and the many others like it that keep cropping up, I would suggest that you take a moment, and write to your representatives, calling for Paypal to be regulated like the banks (or as the banks SHOULD be), and, if you have a paypal account, contact them with a suggestion that they remove the destruction of property clause.

pleasant dreams

beemandave

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.