Archive for March, 2008

Last week, an eBay bidder was the lucky winner of a brand new 2008 E90 M3 BMW. The winning bid was $60,000, which is considerably under the sticker price for such a car. It’s pretty — black with a red interior. Not my style, but probably a fairly unusual color combination.

Long story short, Husker BMW Mercedes of Nebraska is refusing to honor the deal and will not sell him the car for the winning bid. According to the buyer in his thread on

15 minutes after auction end, this guy Michael Barett (At BMW of Nebraska) calls and nervously tells me the auction was a “mistake”.

I reminded him of his contractual obligation to complete the transaction, to which he continues to reply “it was a mistake”, and refused to honor the deal.

He then offered to call his manager and confirm what they could do, but same response. When I pressed the issue and raised the possibility of legal action, this guy had the nerve to condescendingly laugh and say we are a multi-billion dollar company, ebay will definitely side with us.

If true, something tells me that Michael isn’t going to have his job for much longer, if he is even still working there as I type this. EBay auctions are legally binding contracts, and eBay has a history of siding with the person who is in the right according to their rules. The size of the company is immaterial to them (eBay is the 900 lb. gorilla here, anyway; a piss-ant BMW dealer in Nebraska is small potatoes to them).

The auction did not have a reserve, just a starting bid of $60,000. Winner states there was a Buy It Now price of $66,926, but he was the only bidder so he won it at the starting price. From my experience as a seller on eBay, and the specifics of eBay’s contractual rules, the buyer certainly seems to have a legitimate claim.

I’m wondering what BMW thinks of all this. It can’t be happy that a single dealership in Nebraska is damaging its reputation by being such assholes about this.

And there is the larger issue to consider of eBay Motors. It is not unusual for dealerships to “auction” cars on eBay. I would never, in a million years, buy a car sight-unseen on the internet. You have no way of really knowing that car’s history without examining it yourself, or even verifying the VIN in some cases. I can’t be the only person who feels this way, so there has to be a huge component of trust and reputation involved for dealers to still be doing car sales this way. It wouldn’t be profitable otherwise.

If a major new car dealer can screw a customer like this on eBay, it’s devastating for all the other, honest dealers. People are going to start avoiding internet car sales, and that carefully built-up trust is gone in a blink of an eye.

Now, a smart dealership in another area, like a BMW dealer in another town in Nebraska, or even in another state, should jump on this situation and offer the guy an identical car for the winning price. They get a sale, and honest dealers everywhere have their reputations restored.

So how about it, all you BMW dealers out there? If you have a 2008 E90 M3 with a Jerez black exterior and a Fox red interior, why not give this guy a call?

UPDATE 3/25/07: This incident made the eBay buyer’s (whose name is Ken Tanisaka) local newspaper. He reports that the dealership is currently negotiating with him, although the details are not public at this time. The dealer group’s sales manager, Ryan Mathis, indicated that they had posted the auction incorrectly:

“We didn’t have the reserve set properly,” Mathis explained. “We had a ‘buy it now’ at $67,800. It was an error by our eBay [sales] manager. $67,800 was supposed to be the reserve.”

Mathis has indicated that he intends to sell Tanisaka the car, although what the price will turn out to be is anyone’s guess at this point. Probably an honest error on the dealer’s part that blew up in their faces due to the internet exposure.

UPDATE 3/26/07: Apparently the dealership was just playing nice to try to get their internet exposure to go away. Ken, the buyer, posts on

The dealership wanted me to assist in defusing the situation, in letting the sites I contacted know that I was getting my deal. I didnt mind doing that,as long I was JUST that. I had no intention of becoming a pawn for this dealer, not after the way they treated me!

SO I went out and contacted Channel 8, Ebay, BBB and m3post to let everyone know things were moving in a positive direction. But in subsequent conversations, I got placed under the impression that the dealership really isnt sorry for anything they have done here. Their attitude, it seemed was that I am to blame for the firestorm that culminated, implying that I wasnt being proactive enough in getting the word out Hello? Did you not see the international outrage from this situation? Root cause, gentleman. Introspection.Why are hundred of thousands of people around the world so pissed? Until they get it, im under the impression that nothing will change.

We are not that easily distracted.

Husker BMW and Mercedes seems to be of the opinion that bloggers have too much time on their hands, because we’re making such a big deal out of nothing. If you ask me, it’s the dealer that has too much time on their hands, to be balking like this (and damaging their reputation as well as the reputation of BMW as a whole) over a paltry $7,800.

So, I reiterate my call for another dealership to step up and offer Ken a 2008 E90 M3 (black ext./red int.) for $60,000. Surely that media coverage would be worth the “loss” on the car’s price.

This is getting ridiculous.

Having failed to stop piracy by suing internet users, the music industry is for the first time seriously considering a file sharing surcharge that internet service providers would collect from users.

Griffin’s idea is to collect a fee from internet service providers — something like $5 per user per month — and put it into a pool that would be used to compensate songwriters, performers, publishers and music labels. A collecting agency would divvy up the money according to artists’ popularity on P2P sites, just as ASCAP and BMI pay songwriters for broadcasts and live performances of their work.

Oh HELLS no.

Why should I pay for something I don’t do? I have never in my life downloaded a pirated song, nor do I ever intend to. And how would my $5 in any way compensate for the kid down the street who is exchanging thousands of dollars worth of illegal material daily on his open file server?

“I love Paul McGuinness’ idea,” says another scheduled SXSW panelist, Dina LaPolt, a Los Angeles attorney who represents Mötley Crüe and the estate of Tupac Shakur. “And I love the idea of trying to make ISPs pay artists and make up for all the free crap that’s going on. I support both, so long as artists are getting paid for their work.”

Why should ISPs pay for it? They haven’t done anything wrong. That’s like trying to make the phone company pay for a stolen goods transaction between a thief and a fence having a phone conversation. As the article states:

Technology experts say it would be impossible to reliably inspect trillions of packets for pirated material, especially if file sharing networks resort to encryption mechanisms. Legal experts point out that any attempt by an ISP to monitor its traffic in this way would jeopardize its status as a common carrier.

The hypocrisy of the record labels is galling, too. They talk about “artists” getting paid, when in reality the artists barely profit from their own material. It’s the publisher that takes the lion’s share. Just be honest and talk about the copyright holder, which is the record label and not the artist.

I am sooooo fucking tired of this shit.

You can’t stop music piracy. That’s the reality. Trying to get the money out of whoever you can lay your hands on is not an appropriate response. Identifying and locating the individuals who commit media piracy is basically impossible, due to the nature of the internet. RIAA is going to have to live with that, and stop throwing lawsuits in random directions to see who they can bully into forking over some money.

This fabulous incident came to my attention today:

A 19-year-old Israeli Arab woman has survived an attempted “honor killing” by her brother on Tuesday in the Arab village of Na’ura, near Afula, after two bullets fired at her head shattered on impact, failing to penetrate her skull.

Paramedics said the girl survived by playing dead, leading her brother to stop shooting and kicking her.

I especially like this bit:

According to police, the attack had been carefully planned over a long period, and the suspect had informed his family of his murderous intentions.

This guy is so full of fail that I’m speechless with laughter. He shot the victim TWICE in the HEAD and both bullets shattered without penetrating her skull? And this was a carefully planned crime that just completely didn’t work.

According to Islam, everything happens as part of Allah’s will. People die when Allah decides they will, and any human attempts to defy this will are doomed to fail. Therefore, they consider human beings to be incapable of guilt or blame in the crimes they commit, and no activity is too risky, because there’s nothing they can do if Allah decides to claim or spare a life.

By this reasoning, I can only conclude that Allah didn’t want this girl dead, and her brother’s attempt to defy Allah’s will failed completely (and in the face of pretty overwhelming odds, I must say).

I won’t comment on the morality, or lack thereof, in the entire concept of honor killings. It isn’t deserving of discussion, being a barbaric and nonsensical practice that is a logical extension of the devaluation of human life (and women) that seems to be inherent in radical Islamism.