Postage of fakes

[fixnwear]

Hello to all,

I have read many times on the boards that if the fake is susspected  that one doesn't have to send it back as it's illegal!

What a load of cods wallop

How does a recipient of a fake item thinks it got to him/her in the first place?

Through the post, in most cases. Australia Post delivered it OK!

Post office doesn't care/wouldn't know what is fake, all parcels are sealed - and besides, it's not their job to police that sort of thing.

Advice given to buyers  here is so misleading, a great cop out - not having to go to any trouble of returning someone else's property, fake or not - if full refund is promised or even already issued.

I have also spoken to PP - their attitude is the same.

If the buyer claims a fake item and doesn't have anything official to support that claim - they'll have to return it to the seller in order to get the refund. If the seller agrees, of course.

They also are not willing to act as a police - to determine what is fake and what isn't - nor they are in too much of a hurry to tell anyone to distroy someone else's proerty rather than to post it back - as some sellers want the item back even if it is a fake.

Then the rights owner can take it up with them, not the PO or PP.

The only thing that the PO told me it would worry them is people posting flamable or otherwise hazardous items/material.

And finally, if the item has to be returned to an overseas country, going through the customs - again, no problem at all, singular items, or small quantities get here - and they can go back just  the same.

Customs guys wouldn't give it a time of day - unless is a shippping container load! (Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak)

[lalala-au]

Yes I do remember that incident, it was terrible! The law for fake items is really just not relative for protecting copyright and profits of a company it is also there for protecting consumers.

And really as much as big business can make me mad or annoy me at times especially with their prices and profit margins, I always try to remember that the business started with 1 person's idea. They started as a small business and had a brilliant idea and worked extremely hard to get the business where it is today, they may of even had some luck along the way. Who am I to begrudge another human being for their hard work and success, it is not like it was my orginal idea. However I am sure if I research into some big businesses I can learn many things from them.

[cq_tech]

It's not so much the subject matter greencat, as the fact that human nature is such that nobody appreciates being publicly told they're wrong, particularly when they know they're right. Add to that the sheer frustration of not being able to post the documentary evidence which proves you're right, and it's not surprising that the issue had become a contentious one.

[modestbods]

---

@i-love-my-sheep wrote:

Looks like all the missing messages just arrived!!!!

---

LOL so I see. Now you can see what torment I went through trying to post that flipping info... I tried everything I could think of, changing font sizes, colours, removing underlining etc, cutting the post in half.. in the end I even did away with copy paste & manually typed everything to avoid any embedded links/gremlins that might have been causing conflict... I even checked I hadn't been banned for some reason... the only thing I hadn't tried until dg suggested it was to delete the Auspost link completely, which then solved it.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

 Can you provide a web link to the AusPost regs you have claimed ?

---

---

@modestbods wrote:

lmao if only you knew 

hang on, i'll brb

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I wasn't calling you a liar. It just appeared that your info had come from a customs site.
Coincidental Section numbers. I unreservedly apologise if you were offended in any way.
I had the same trouble posting my link ( which it appears is outdated but live...lol ).

http://****auspost.com.au/media/documents/dangerous-prohibited-goods-packaging-post-guide****.pdf

The damn thing appeared to post OK ( 7 times ) but kept vanishing ( as yours probably did ).

62.1.1 any article whose possession or carriage by post is prohibited by a law of the
Commonwealth, a State or Territory;

I am not so sure because actually owning a counterfeit item is not a against the law in Australia is it ?

We should attract the attention of an AusPost forum dweller.

---

LOL I guess now you do know. 

[i-love-my-sheep]

I got my monthly wad of catalogues from Macquarie Mint today and one of their offers for this month is a REPLICA coin from 1797 (I'm still trying to convince my friend who has a real one that it's worth nothing and I'll give him $10 for it, but he doesn't believe me for some reason! :D). 

I'm sure that Mac Mint has gone through all the legal mumbo jumbo to be able to produce this replica coin, but you have to wonder how they do it (not questioning it, more curious than anything).

If I bought one, with a certificate of authenticity, would I be allowed to sell it at a later date and also be legally allowed to post it, given that it is a replica?

[amber-eyed-girl]

Interesting question. It is a replica, officially produced by a legitimate company.

It is therefore not a counterfeit. You should be able to sell it.

Guess you run that past eBay.

[wilk1149]

Now now sheep. You know the rules about replicas, especially after all the edumucation we have just had. You won't be able to have it posted to you, you won't be able to list it on eBay and you will have to report yourself to
customs and possibly the police

[i-love-my-sheep]

That's what I wasn't sure about because they are a 'certified' replica, complete with a COA. This is doing my head in LOL! Need a caffeine infusion.

[modestbods]

LOL it's fine sheepy. Copyrights & trademarks have an expiry date. 1797 is well and truly outside that time. So if it isn't currently legal tender, then whether it's a replica or original item doesn't matter, it's fine.

Mac Mint have may have obtained a license to exclusively produce a replica (like obtaining a fresh patent/copyright), hence the COA, but more probably it's just proof that it was produced by them (and a way of making it seem more valuable).

[i-love-my-sheep]

---

@modestbods wrote:

LOL it's fine sheepy. Copyrights & trademarks have an expiry date. 1797 is well and truly outside that time. So if it isn't currently legal tender, then whether it's a replica or original item doesn't matter, it's fine.

Mac Mint have may have obtained a license to exclusively produce a replica (like obtaining a fresh patent/copyright), hence the COA, but more probably it's just proof that it was produced by them (and a way of making it seem more valuable).

---

Ahhh, OK, that makes sense. If I understand that correctly, that means the fake coins that I have (of the same coin that the mint is offering), that have COPY stamped on them, should be OK to sell? I have already sold a few on eBay and they usually get snapped up when I list them. I take photos of the actual coin and also a close up of the word copy on each side. It's also mentioned multiple times that they are not the real deal.

I also list replica florins as well sometimes, which also bear the word copy. Same story as above. They usually get snapped up pretty quickly too. I sell them as space fillers so people can have a full collection of coins to look at as opposed to having gaps for the hard to get expensive ones.

I did have some replica 1930 Pennies too, but they all got snapped up really fast. The word copy on them was HUGE, so no chance of trying to pass them off as real. Still, the buyers were happy as they filled the gap up in their Penny collection. There's still a few sellers selling those at the moment and they sell them for a lot more than I did.....which is probably why mine got snapped up so fast!

[modestbods]

Yup, should be all good.

If however you sold them as authentic coins, then obviously that would be a no no & could give rise to an allegation/charge of fraud (legitimately so). It wouldn't be a copyright/patent/trademark matter though, it'd just be a straight out crime for profit (ie. theft by deception).