Not false.

That is precisely how the market DOES organically set price to value.

A seller is free to set a price on his product at whatever he wants.

If this price is at or below the perceived value of the product, then consumers will buy it. If it is below the perceived value, then consumers will buy more (each consumer buys more units or more consumers will buy). If the price is higher than perceived value, then consumers just won't buy it. They'll either find alternatives or just do without.

That's how the market works. Your position that the "transaction price is below what te (sic) buyer values a good at and above what a seller values at" doesn't work. You can only have a transaction if both parties actually connect at a price point where both parties overlap. If there's no overlap, there's no transaction -- both buyer and consumer walk away. No transaction means no "transaction price."

This is covered in every intro to economics course in the first few lectures.

British slang for "stuff"

Have you been on Youtube lately? Blowing crap up is a pretty common hobby among Americans.

The US government is conveniently exempted from the DMCA when national security issues become involved.

Pretty much anything to do with the armed forces can very easily be swept under that particular rug.

OK. I see your point, but I still think my original point is valid. If you're wrecking property that isn't yours, the charge is going to be destruction of public or private property, not poaching. That means you'd be a vandal, not a hunter.

The article says that HUNTERS regularly TRIED to hit the insulators. That's like those jackasses that shoot up stop signs for fun. It's called VANDALISM, not HUNTING.

I'm guessing the animal rights nuts and anti-gun people are thinking that hunters go in the woods, get bored, and start shooting at random objects to pass the time..

That makes absolutely no sense. Regardless of what game you're going after, if you make any noise at all, any game in the vicinity will take off. If you fire off a shot, you can pretty much pack it up and go home. You're not getting anything that day.

So, would it give her any protection in case of identity theft? Surely someone's causing market confusion about the product in that case.

In this particular scenario, it seems like Ebay is punishing itself. The buyer can't get the page to work, so doesn't bid on the seller's stuff. The item either doesn't sell or it sells for less. Since Ebay's fee structure is a listing fee plus a percentage of the final sale price, they stand to make less if they choose to ignore this.