In my opinion commercial free speech is what the first amendment is about. Kinda like when Judge Learned Hand said you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and claim free speech. I was carrying the argument to it's end in that the First Amendment also applies to the states and trickles down to where an individual going after the "press" in a private lawsuit is told no liability there because of the First Amendment.
Our founding fathers never contemplated the commercial application of the First Amendment that exists today. Half truths sells much better than the whole truth. Sales equals the right to charge more to the advertisers. Truth usually takes a back seat to profits. I realize the courts don't agree with my rights versus obligations argument getting hung up on prior restraint and public versus private figures and intent etc. I agree with your interpretation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The point I was trying to make was my understanding of how ebay "forces" a seller to obtain good feedback. I truly get sick and tired of sellers feeling like they have to spend as much time making their buyers give feedback as they do in selling. From your third point and beyond - total agreement. I admit bias against ebay. I won an auction where the seller flat out lied about the face value of performance tickets. I could not get ebay to do anything except send me a standard email acknowledging my complaint. Do I detect some law in your background? I've been know to take a position that I really don't believe in just because I love to argue. Kind of like learning to fake sincerity.