Ohio Wants eBayers to Post $50k Bond 841
MacDork writes "CNNMoney posted a short article this morning about new Ohio regulations set to become effective May 2 this year. If you are in the state and selling on eBay, you will need to pay $200 for a license and post a $50,000 bond or face possible fines and jail time. Getting the license also requires a one-year apprenticeship. When asked to which eBay users this bill applied, the bill's author, Larry Mumper responded with these very specific guidelines.... "It certainly will not apply to the casual seller on eBay, but might apply to anyone who sells a lot.""
Typical government stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Will this be a HUGE burden and inconvienence on the honest?
Yes.
Governments so often believe they can wave a piece of paper and behavior stops. Just like gun control, this will never stop a scammer but will punish the honest.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, all the honest sellers on ebay would be set back tremendously.
But all is not despair. Do you smell that? I do, it's the smell of legislation that will never be passed. This is just another one of those bills we keep seeing that has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law, serving the sole purpose of allowing the senator to say "LOOK I WAS AGAINST EBAY SCAMMING!!!!111" Honestly, it's sad that this is what our "representatives" spend most of their time doing, but hey, at least they have the sense not to actually pass it, right?
Good God I hope so...
-py
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually when governments pass a law like that, they're usually trying to make money. Take cigarettes, alcohol, and in amsterdam, heroin, for example.
I think ohio has seen a big fat cash cow and has decided to get down to milk it at gunpoint.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
on that latter thing, its just a control factor, the illusion that "Everything will be better as long as *we* know who's doing what.". Total garbage, gross violation of the principles on which the nation was founded, but there you go.
More like techno-challenged stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
What on earth does bid-calling have to do with selling stuff on eBay, where you never see or hear the buyers' spoken or gestured responses, but only a final high bid as determined by a computer?? That alone tells me that whoever thinks this applies to eBay sellers is weak on the concept. In fact, eBay
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
Adding this requirement for bonding will simply mean that people who are trying to do business legitimately through eBay find themselves with a new cost while the scammers will ignore this just as they're already ignoring the laws against fraud.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:4, Interesting)
No licensed heroin sellers in the Netherlands (Score:5, Informative)
It is possible to get a license to sell marijuana in Amsterdam. It's a long and painstaking process. Marijuana gets sold in small outlets called 'coffeeshops' (English word) and coffee gets sold in a 'koffiehuis' (Dutch word). Sex shops are sometimes openly advertised as 'Fuck Houses' (public display of vulgar words in foreign languages is frowned on, but not illegal).
Some psycedelics like peyote and other sensitive drugs like organic Viagra (yohimbe) or intelligence-enhancers can be bought legally at 'Smart Shops'.
Nowhere in the Netherlands can a person just walk off the street and buy highly addictive drugs like crack cocaine, crystal meth, or heroin. There MAY be government programs to provide heroin to addicts under controlled conditions and monitoring, but no one legally sells it in licensed shops.
Thank you,
Re:Imagine the in-humane despair and misery, you m (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a thought.
Re:Imagine the in-humane despair and misery, you m (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah...you know, I'm sure there are some kids out there that are ADD...but, I'm really of a mind that most of them are just aflicted with what we used to refer to 'back in the day'...as being a KID. Seems like they want to medicate everyone these days. Most every kid I knew growing up, had wild spurts...getting into some trouble (nothing bad)...it was called being a boy. Now...if a kid is anything but comatose...they seem to want to drug them...
It already passed (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA:
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the law, signed by Gov. Robert Taft on Feb. 1
Re:It already passed (Score:5, Insightful)
Since 9 times out of 10 you won't be selling to someone inside the state...
great lawmaker! (Score:5, Funny)
A+++++!!!! Would vote for again!!! Prompt porkbarrels, curteous pandering!!!!
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
So forget free market let's just regulate everything so that a few fat cats can make tons of money?
I never said it was right or wrong I was just stating the facts.
For some reason I don't think anyone would propose a bill with that intention let alone pass it.
Yeah right. Unless those people passing the bill were in or were paid off by those in the industry. C'mon, just look at how many regulations there are on lawyers. And look at what the profession of most of the politicians is. Think it's a coincidence? It isn't.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
It also talks about a one year apprenticship with a licensed auctioneer and to participate in auctions around the State. I think this legislation is for those people calling out bids at an auction (auctioneers). This would not apply then to the person having their items auctioned. I can see Oh
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:4, Interesting)
The bill *supposedly* wasn't meant to apply to casual sellers. However, the way it is currently written, it applies to everyone who sells on ebay. They are trying to backpeddle and swear that they are going to revise it, but I really don't buy it.
There are many times that I want to smack our legislaters (I live in Ohio). The amusing thing was that the state rep for where I used to live was a friend of my family's, so I really *could* smack him. =]
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:3, Informative)
No, Governments (read: elected officials) believe doing this will get them reelected. It seems to work...
Larry Mumper -- a BG check (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a passel of state Reps I'd describe as "social right wingers" who put up stuff like death penalty legislation every term. They were behind the weapons bill: it was touted as making the law fairer by not leaving it up to individual sheriffs, but really it aimed at allowing more people to carry concealed guns. The bills these folks turn out seem to have been written by 10th graders who were unfamiliar with anything but the skeleton of the issue they're talking about, and they often have unintended consequences.
So, who is this guy?
Senator Larry A. Mumper [state.oh.us], Ohio Senate Republican.
He's listed there as primary sponsor of a couple of other bills, including one that was presented as an "academic bill of rights for higher education." [kenyon.edu] This bill was partly prompted by a story about a kid who wrote a "pro-America" paper and got a bad grade from his teacher... Oops, except the kid's paper was crap [mediamatters.org]; he'd written a 1-page "report" that wasn't up-to-snuff, got a bad grade, and decided it was because he was patriotic that he'd been silenced. The bill itself reads like a wolf in sheep's clothing aimed at "protecting a plurality of opinion" by remaining neutral about crap like "intelligent design." It doesn't spell out how you'd decide when a topic was "controversial" -- gee, an ambiguity that could lead to unintended consequences.
Does this sound like exactly the sort of wingnut I'm seeing in Minnesota? I mean, this is a guy who says his law "might apply to anyone who sells a lot" and "If someone buys and sells on eBay on a regular basis as a type of business, then there is a need for regulation." "As a type of business"? No ambiguity there, is there?
Re:Larry Mumper -- a BG check (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the entire concept of "double taxation" is a meaningless distinction tossed around by people who think they're entitled to freebies.
Would you be happier if, rather than taxing you 10 times at 5% your government taxed you 1 time at 50%? I'll assume the answer to that question is no. Perhaps it might be a better use of funds and streamline the taxation process, but taxes are broken down and doubled up because Americans have the bizarre notion that taxes are money wasted.
Taxes are not money wasted. They are the dues you pay to live in a civilized society. Education, Defense, Crime Prevention, Transportation, Infrastructure, these are all programs and benefits funded by your tax dollar.
This is exactly what the founders of this nation were against - all these freaking taxes!
It's good to know that you didn't pay attention in American History or Civics. The founders of the United States were, at least in word, against the concept of governance without representation. They were irritated that a bunch of people who didn't represent them were making laws about how they should live their lives and taking their money to do things that they never benefited from.
They weren't against taxes. Even the Articles of Confederation, the document most against the concept of taxation in the legal history of the United States allows the Congress "to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses."
The government can tax you on whatever it needs to tax you on. It's your government. You get to vote and decide what needs to be done. At least, that was the plan. There is a whole mess about campaign finance reform, but we'll touch on that later.
Fundamentally, it is a meaningless distinction as to how the government gets your money. Taxing your car or taxing your income, it's all the same thing. About the only difference is how taxes impact different portions of the population, but you seem unconcerned about that.
I suspect that your key issue is not how the government gets your money, but that it gets it at all. I suspect you are of the opinion that you shouldn't have to pay taxes because you don't like social programs like Welfare, Medicaid, etc.
Personally, I don't benefit from any of those social programs. I hope I never have to. That said, things might not always be a rosy for me as they are right now. Things can get bad, really bad really fast. I want those government programs in place so that, should catastrophe strike, my family and myself are taken care of.
I think it's a crime that in the leading agricultural producing nation on earth, children are hungry.
I think it's a crime that, in the richest nation on earth, families can't afford to send their children to college.
I think it's a crime that the US spends more money on porn than foreign aid. That we spend more money per capita on coffee than the per capita income of more than 2 Billion people.
The United States has taken a culture of independence and turned it into a culture of materialistic consumerism. We've gone from "I don't need your help" to "You can't have my help."
I can understand not liking income tax forms, not liking to fill out all the paperwork, not liking to deal with the red tape that comes from doing business with the government. That said, taxes are necessary to create government and, well, you get what you pay for. No taxes means no government.
As Thomas Hobbes once famously wrote, Without government, "the life of man [is] solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short".
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:4, Informative)
It was an oversight when the law was written and will be amended.
http://www.nbc4i.com/print/4253028/detail.html [nbc4i.com]
And for the lazy...
Although, take note of the last sentence.
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
There are legitimate reasons to sell on ebay, but a gun is for shooting people with...
Aside from the fact that you're implying that there is never a legitimate reason to shoot something or someone (I know people with rattlesnakes in their backyard who would disagree with your calling hunting with a handgun "bullshit"...), a gun isn't just for shooting people with. There's a lot to be said for intimidation. You should know this since you're obviously scared of people having guns.
That's not my real issue with your shortsighted post though.
If no one has guns, no one gets to shoot people.
Let's skip being pedantic about bows, slingshots, etc... (It's probably easier to kill somebody at range with a wrist rocket than with a
You're a few hundred years too late. The cat is out of the bag. People have guns. Laws don't take guns away from anybody. Some people may comply with the law, and you may try to force compliance through law enforcement, but the guns are out there. The only people you're going to take guns away from are people who obey the law. Given that there will never be another time in human history when no one has a gun, would you rather that only the people most likely to shoot you with their gun were able to carry?
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a dumb, defeatist argument. May as well give up locking my car, becuase there will always be car thieves, and if they want to get in they will. Not only that, but it propagates the myth that having a gun will somehow prevent you from getting shot - nothing could be further from the truth. How many people are shot with th
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please.
Isn't the goal to reduce the number of killings? Who cares how the people were killed.
Are you saying that you don't care wether people kill each other, just as long as they don't do it with a gun?
Your argument sounds like the same kind of trash that most activists spew. They hide their true agenda (lifestyle/culture/belief reform) behind some issue that tugs at people's heart-strings.
With the exception of accidental shootings, do you really think that not having a gun is going to stop violence? Do you think the lack of a gun is going to stop anybody that is intent on harming another person from actually doing it?
Re:Typical government stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't let them make you back down. The possibility of needing to protect yourself from or overthrow the current
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only do Americans tolerate a wide variety of restrictive laws, which vary state by state, they even have to pay for their own guns and ammunition!
Compare this to the Swiss experience.
Every Swiss [stephenhalbrook.com] man, on reaching age 20, is issued with a rifle to keep at home.That rifle is the SIG Strumgeweher (assault rifle) model 1990 (Stgw 90), a selective fire, 5.6 mm rifle with folding skeleton stock, bayonet lug, bipod, and grenade launcher. pic [waffeninfo.net] , pic [swissarms2.ath.cx], Google [google.com]
The Stgw 90 is a real assault rifle in that it is fully automatic.
Gun control dogma claims that this would result in a bloodbath. As usual, the dogma is wrong.
Note also that Mainstream Media avoids reporting on the Swiss gun policy. After all, they don't want to undo all the work they have done for anti-gun forces over the years!
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
In America, the problem is that push tends to be for gun rights without responsibility from one side, and onerous, one-sided restrictions from the other. Personally, I don't have any problem with assault rifles being issued to any one who participates in a well regulated militia. Hey, that s
Swiss and guns (Score:4, Informative)
Still want to pretend this is less restrictive than the US?
you watch too much television (Score:3, Insightful)
Good grief...stop watching so much TV. I've lived 31 years in "yankeeland" and have never been within 500 miles of one of your supposed daily park bloodbaths. They don't exist. What does exist, though never reported in the mainstream press, is the many many defensive uses of guns - many of which involve only the brandishing (not firing) of the weapon. Bloodbaths are "good news" - scaring off a two-legged predator isn't.
And people kill people. People have been killing other people long before guns exi
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, if you're not a gang member you are more likely to be killed by a legal firearm than an illegal one. That doesn't make "gun control" a workable solution, but it does fly in the face of what most gun activists say.
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:4, Insightful)
To stop drugs, we should not go after the source, but the end user.
To stop guns, we should go after the source, not the end user.
Should we go after the big 3? After all, their vehicles kill far more people each year than guns.
I'll leave you alone now, I gotta go burn down some trees.
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
What have they done that's illegal?
Perhaps you've forgotten the Bill of Rights and how the right to bear arms is second only to the right to free speech.
Guns are not the problem - people who illegally use guns (and who don't care about laws to begin with) are the problem. Making new laws will not stop these people from continuing to illegally use guns. Just as new laws will not stop P2P file sharing, drugs, etc. People that break existing laws will not stop
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're also cool with going after "legit" guys like Ford or General Motors? After all, convicted drunk drivers who aren't supposed to drive can still pick up keys and drive anyway... so we'd better deprive everyone of cars, just in case. Especially since more people are killed with cars than with guns. Oh: and don't forget baseball bats, kitchen knives, etc. There are all sorts of people out there "intending to break the law" with those tools, too.
Oh, wait: here's a thought. The vast majority of people who kill with guns are recidivist, repeat criminals. Maybe they shouldn't be walking around in your neighborhood in the first place?
By the way, what's your angle on going after the manufacturer of a legal product than can only hurt someone when someone picks it and deliberately uses it in that way? Check in with places like Africa and Central America, where gangs there routinely kill people with machetes, knives, and bottles of gasoline. Do you think that people intent on that sort of terrorizing care, at all, what you think about their chosen tools? I can tell you one thing they do care about: not knowing which business or household may be able to defend itself. In states like Florida, the right to carry has reduced violent crime. In places like Australia, where they've confiscated everyone's guns, violent crime has gone up, as criminals can act with impunity. The exact opposite of what the gun control people wanted (no matter how many times they're told that's what's going to happen).
If guns in personal possesion are such a problem, how do places like Switzerland, where there are more guns per household than in the US manage to have less violent crime? Not by regulating hardware, but by improving software: they have a real educational system with actual standards, they don't tolerate crime, and their culture doesn't celebrate thuggishness as a fashion. And, of course, violent criminals there know that there is a strong possibility of getting shot down like a dog while being a violent criminal: that has a wonderful impact on career choice.
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Informative)
If you are Swiss you have had a lot of training in using your weapon. Unlike the US where guns seem to end up as toys for shooting at beer cans when you get drunk in the trailor park. Which points to an easy solution for the whole gun issue. The US does the same thing the Swiss has done. Bring back the draft and have everybody spend
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm Swiss and you are wrong on the second account of your argument. The first part might be right. Because every male citizen automatically s
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
But here in the US, people who use guns illegally (say, to threaten or kill someone) also are supposed to go to jail. The problem is that people like that are frequently right back out of jail, and no less sensible (if not actually worse) than when they went in. We're talking, here, about people who choose to act violently, without regard for the consequences. You say that you may have the occasion
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
baseball bats are made for hitting baseballs, kitchen knives are made for preparing food and occasionally opening envelopes, and guns are made for moving little pieces of metal very fast into people.
A baseball bat is actually just an optimized club. Its purpose is to violently intercept a round, mostly organic object, and radically alter its inertia. The energy delivered is tremendous, and hence its appeal as an alternative weapon. But wooden clubs go way, way back - and no doubt first saw action as weapons: to hunt or defend against animals (bipedal and otherwise). Most of the hit-the-object-with-a-stick games go back to combat training or simulation in one form or another. It's just that the season lasts longer when both teams survive.
As for kitchen knives: a special case of all things with sharp edges. Originally put to use to: kill, main, dismember, chop up, etc. There's a reason that versions of knives (like machetes) remain such fearson weapons in the third world: they're cheap, effective, and you don't need to reload. And, you can claim that it's in your car because you need it at work (say, cutting cane or whatnot). But edged tools are designed to separate material into pieces. Who uses it, and on what, is completely beside the point.
Guns, on the other hand, are complicated devices of recent invention.
If by "recent" you mean "over 600 years ago," then you're right. But the since you cited the Bronze Age when talking about knives, it seems that 2000 years is your magic number for making a weapon natural, OK, and reasonable for everyone to have or use. I, though, think that any tool that projects or enhances your personal flesh-and-bone native self is pretty much philosophically neutral, and it's what you choose to do with it, not how old the technology is, that merits discussion. Certainly the crossbow, sling, spear, and other goodies go back longer than firearms... where do you draw the line? Maybe there's no point in doing so, and we should focus instead on culture, not culture's hardware?
they were designed on the concept of shooting people
Except, I use mine to put dinner on the table. I actually, literally, shoot things and then eat them. With some fava beans, and a nice Chianti. Seriously: quail, venison, turkey, pheasant... you can't eat better meat, and you'll never appreciate it more than when you (and your dog, in my case) get your hands/paws bloody along the way. It's a connection to reality that most people never, ever make. And the tools I use to quickly dispatch game are guns. Not pointy sticks, not deadfall traps, not poison, not fire, not clubbing over the head - nope: high speed lead objects, some applied physics, and dinner.
I've also used a gun to run off a seriously broken, drug-addled person that was beating our sliding glass door at 2:00AM. I have no doubts that the city police would have been 15 minutes arriving on the scene, and the guy's behavior was truly frightening - and likely to wind up in several people getting hurt. Brandishing a shotgun like I meant it took care of things, and the police found him sneaking out the back of the neighborhood's woods about 30 minutes later. He was trying to get into our house because they were already looking for him, and he knew it. I can't imagine the consequences otherwise, but the same tool that I use to put tasty dinner on the table helped keep that guy out of our house. And should he be out on the street again (no doubt he is), I'm sure that somewhere in the back of his mind is the thought that he'll never know when some house he might want to invade is going to be the end of him. That's a deterrent, and it works just as well on the neighborhood scale as it does internationally.
Guns are fundamentally different from the other items you mentioned, which is why they're treated differently.
But they're not so much, really, and to the extent that they are, it'
Re:The swiss have figured out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Interesting)
Correlate gun ownership rates in any county of the USA with fatal shooting in that county. You'll be surprised.
Hint: the counties with the most restrictive gun-control laws and the lowest rates of gun ownership tend to be up near the top in terms of fatal shootings.
Anecdotal case: Jefferson Parish LA vs. Orleans Parish LA. Two counties (we call them parishes in LA, but they're still counties) that are literally side by side - separated by a canal about 30 feet wide. Po
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Kids manhandling their daddys gun and shooting themselves is strictly the fault of the parent - and should not hinder the rest of society. Lock up the freaking gun - they pretty much all come with safety locks. Suicides will kill themselves in a manner of different ways - gun is just easier - but if someone wants to die, nothing can stop them.
The occasional nutjob - how did he get that gun? Legally or illegally?
My gun has another reason to exist - i like to go to the shooting range, it's fun. My friend likes to go hunting pheasant once a year (he does eat them). And, for protection - sorry I am not such a good fighter that I can fend off 2-5 people with bats and knives...however, i am an excellent shot and my 8 bullets can stop 2-5 people quite easily.
And this "screwed up notion" of defending myself comes up because I do not have a police officer next to me at every moment of my life. A police officer does little good to defend my life if he is not there.
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to repost something I wrote elsewhere in this thread:
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the media that is distorting your view. There are thousands of documented cases a year where a firearm saves lives and prevents crime. I take it you support the V chip and the goverenment telling us what ch
Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? (Score:3, Informative)
The legislature surely was not intending to try and push this on someone who sells something once a year online. It is like requiring a business license to hold a yard sale.
Re:Or you agreed w/ everything but the last senten (Score:4, Interesting)
Its a simple fact that the country is full of guns and they arn't going away. Apparently even the British are starting to have problems themselves as the criminals are arming themselves.
Congress might have something to say about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Congress might have something to say about this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Congress might have something to say about this (Score:5, Funny)
That should really have read: Do you really believe there's anyone left in Congress that cares what the Constitution says anymore? They sure are paid not to.
Re:Congress might have something to say about this (Score:5, Informative)
How does the interstate commerce clause apply? (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting idea and the law is certainly too vague, but I don't see how this is an interstate commerce issue. Ohio is regulating (or overregulating) its own state's businesses. Its really no different than a local sales tax on restaurants, business license for retailers, etc. This would only become an interstate issue is Ohi
I guess I missed something... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ebay is only a venue (Score:4, Informative)
Frequently Asked Questions about the User Agreement:
Why is there a User Agreement?
Will the User Agreement change again?
What does "eBay is only a venue" mean?
Why can't I bid on my own item?
If I place a bid, how exactly am I obligated to the seller?
Why was one listing removed, while other similar items remain on the site?
How do I know if an item is potentially illegal or not?
What happens if someone violates the User Agreement?
How do I report a potentially illegal, infringing or fraudulent item?
What does Section 6.3 of the User Agreement regarding Your Information mean?
Does Section 7 prohibit me from using auction management software to track my personal transactions on eBay?
Does Section 7 prohibit me from discussing or linking to eBay on other websites?
What does Section 17 of the User Agreement regarding arbitration mean?
Search the Help System
Search for help on:
(e.g., what is a Reserve Price Auction?)
If you can't find an answer to your question here, Ask eBay.
Q.
Why is there a User Agreement?
A. The User Agreement is a legal document that spells out the relationship between you and eBay. It outlines the services, pricing, Privacy Policy, and the buyer and seller relationship for listing and bidding on items in eBay's auction format.
Q.
Will the User Agreement change again?
A. It may change periodically. When revisions are needed, changes will be posted on the site 30 days before taking effect. You also have the option to receive email notices of any revisions as they occur. To select this option go to the preferences page, by choosing Change my notification preferences under My eBay at Services.
Q.
What does "eBay is only a venue" mean?
A. eBay is an exciting electronic marketplace where you can buy and sell to your heart's content. However, eBay does not ultimately participate in the transaction between buyer and seller, verify that items are genuine, or guarantee that you will receive payment or auction items. eBay is very concerned about your safety and offers the services of third parties that can provide authentication, insurance, and escrow for your transactions.
Re:I guess I missed something... (Score:5, Informative)
With a traditional auction, the auction house does some verification of the merchandise, and the items are in the control of the auctioneer, not the original owner. On eBay, it's much more like the individual sellers are running their own auctions with eBay simply providing technical services.
So it is different.
As to how the law sees it, that may be several different matters.
Re:I guess I missed something... (Score:4, Informative)
Wow. Just a matter of time. (Score:2)
I am really not too wirried though. Legislatures are not stupid (although some may seem it) and this will likely get voted down asap. Considering the direct implications on ebay, well, I wouldn't be
I think this is a step forward, (Score:5, Funny)
...and a good match for other Ohio laws that mandate tickets for people who "go real fast" and jail for people who "do bad stuff."
Re:I think this is a step forward, (Score:4, Insightful)
My impression is that there some new legislation regulating auctioneers in Ohio (not unreasonable), someone decided it might affect eBay sellers, the sponsor basically says he has no idea how eBay works, and guesses it might affect heavy users, and by the time it hits Slashdot, it's "Stoopid politishun regulates eBay, does'nt know how computars work!!!"
Seems a bit overdone (Score:5, Interesting)
Interstate commerce? (Score:2)
a lot (Score:2)
"It certainly will not apply to the casual seller on eBay, but might apply to anyone who sells a lot."
So that means I can sell individual items, but not a lot of them?
auction school (Score:5, Interesting)
and a school to become a licensed seller?
what if i go on a spree, and say, sell like 30 items that i've found in my basement over christmas break? does that constitute as someone who sells more than 'casually'?
Well then... (Score:2)
... and this why Ohio will always be a sh*thole (Score:2, Insightful)
Chair of Agriculture Committee (Score:2)
One shouldn't judge by looks, but it's hard not to in his case [state.oh.us]. Does he look like someone who has ever used EBay, or even knows how to spell EBay?
Is eBay an auction-house? (Score:2)
What is the outcome of this? (Score:2)
What I don't understand is what exactely they try to accomplish with such... tremendous amounts of money... well beside killing off some hundred to thousand attempts at making a living. What exactely are they trying to regulate here? Employment numbers? Or unemployment numbers if you prefer?
I think it's a great idea to give eBay some legal ground so that it doesn'
Ohio Wants eBayers to Post $50k Bond (Score:2, Interesting)
"might apply to anyone who sells a lot" (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, despite the certain risk of being modded down, Ohio has EVERY right to do this. If you open up a business in Ohio, it has a right to license you. That applies even if you set up your business in your house.
However, I certainly hope they clear up that vague definition before it's enacted!
Re:"might apply to anyone who sells a lot" (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not at issue. What *is* at issue is the $50k and possible "apprenticeship" that goes along with it. Ohio doesn't do that to other retailers or direct sellers; why is it singling out ebay sellers?
Imposing arbitrary licensing law is not a right! (Score:5, Interesting)
States do not have the right to impose arbitrary licensing laws. E.g. Arbitrary licensing laws on hairbraiders, casket sellers, and jitney drivers have been struck down. [ij.org]
The first question to ask when a new licensing scheme is proposed is whether its true motivation is rent seeking [wikipedia.org] rather than consumer protection. I'd be interested to see whether Mr Mumper's has received any recent contributions the from brick and mortar antique seller's lobby.
Re:"might apply to anyone who sells a lot" (Score:3, Insightful)
Applying your analogy to Ebay, once again, if you turn selling stuff on Ebay into a full time business, which MANY people do, Ohio has a right to license those people.
Ohio is not going to go after e
Well what with eBay being responsible (Score:3, Funny)
calm down (Score:5, Informative)
Read the article:
In other words, the lawmakers are NOT attempting to target eBay/eBay users with this law. The law is there only to make sure auctioneers are obeying other Ohio laws regarding auctions. eBay already attempts to enforce the law by shutting down illegal auctions or whatever, so it is VERY unlikely that Ohio lawmakers will need to empose this law onto eBay sellers.
Re:calm down (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:calm down (Score:4, Insightful)
No law should be passed or obeyed when the legislaturalists have to say "don't worry, we won't target YOU with this
But that's the worst kind of law (Score:4, Informative)
The thing is, with vague laws like this, it's ripe for abuse. If someone in the government who can sway the DA gets mad at you, they can bring it selectively down on your head. For example let's say you are protesting some corrupt politician and they get mad, so they get the police to arrest you, and they tell the DA to give you a tough time. Little investigation turns out that you regularly sell things on eBay, just little trinkets and shit, but still. They then charge you with violating this law.
No laws need to be clear, and consistently enforced. None of this "Don't worry about breaking the law, it wasn't meant to apply to YOU" shit, because that's just an excuse for abuse. If they want the law to apply to real auctioneers, it needs to be written as such. If they want it to apply to eBay, they need to make that clear, and enforce it in all cases.
Another Deceptive headline.... (Score:5, Informative)
Would this law make it illegal to have an auctioneer auction off some of your property for you? NO! This would only affect someone acting as an auctioneer.
It will, however, be interesting to see if they try to apply this law to ebay, as they (their software) does act as an auctioneer. A $50,000 bond would be a drop in the bucket for ebay, but I'm not sure if the $200 is per auction or a one-time fee for the license.... That could be interesting.
Re:Another Deceptive headline.... (Score:5, Informative)
Turns out this law is an expansion of existing auctioneering law, applying to auctioneers who only do business online. It makes sense that people who didn't want to go through the licensing process would just get some auction software and make a website, telling their seller and bidders, "sorry, I can't auction in person, or I would have to get a license". The internet has become a loophole for them and this law was intended to close that loophole.
Why license auctioneers in the first place? Well it's all about trust. The auctioneer markets himself as a liasion betweeen buyer and seller -- he doesn't buy your property from you and then sell it as his property. He represents you as an agent while the property is still yours. This is a legal relationship and it's important for auctioneers to understand their legal responsibilities to buyer and seller. I could understand unscrupulous people seeking to take advantage of that position of trust getting around licensing and bonding laws by conducting business only online.
Ah, but wait -- as is sometimes the case with laws, it might have had an unintended side effect -- the eBay seller. Are they or are they not an auctioneer. Well that depends. Most people selling on eBay are not an intermediary, but the seller. eBay is the auctioneer, bringing buyer and seller together and controlling the bidding.
But then there are those people who have found that they are pretty good at selling things on eBay, and there are people who will pay them to sell their stuff on eBay for them. eBay consignment shops -- you may have heard of them. Many of them have had a certain amount of success. And some of them have heard from their local businessmen and/or governments, who are upset that their business is being infringed upon and these eBay kids don't have to get licensed or bonded.
And obviously their relationship in the eBay picture is different -- they're not the seller and they're not the auctioneer. But they're definitely an agent of the seller and they can have significant impact on the result of the auction based on their actions. Hence they have similar legal responsibilities and perhaps licensing for these people should be looked at.
Then there's the obvious public reaction -- $50,000 to sell on eBay? Madness! And inflamatory headlines don't help, either on slashdot or in the mainstream media.
Any way you slice it, it's an interesting story.
RP
From an ebay powerseller...this will not work (Score:3, Interesting)
I sell part time, maybe 5 hours a week.
Last year I grossed almost $250 K...that's a quarter million!
Of that I took about 12 K in profit.
Ebay is NOT a very profitable place to operate anymore. People are NOT becoming rich....at least not often.
I can almost understand the $200 license...standard government fines....but why the classes/apprenticeship.
THe ENTIER point of ebay is that THEY are the auctioneer not you. You are simply the provider of the goods you don't actually participate the in auciton itself.
This law is stupid and will only drive income tax revenue from Ohio. I just thank god that I do not live in a state that is considering this.
The law is on track to be changed (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing to see here, please move a long...
This is outrageous (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like saying that you have to be a doctor or a nurse to go to the hospital.
Missing the point and Unintended audience (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the person who sells on ebay is not an auctioneer. He is the owner of a product that has been taken to ebay to be auctioned off. EBAY is the auctioneer and probably the only entity covered by this law. Again, however, as laws get put on the books, their unintended audience will be found if it means that some fee can be extracted.
Nothing unusual here (Score:3, Informative)
This does not affect EBayers (Score:3, Informative)
Under Sec. 4707.01. in reads (in part):
Under Sec. 4707.02. it reads (in part):
Now, IANAL, but to me this says that Ebay need to be licensed and to post the bond, not the seller. The seller is contracting Ebay's services as an auctioneer.
Larry Mumper (Score:3, Insightful)
It appears he's become fee hungry, like the rest of Ohio's Republicans. With Ohio Republicans, like our lame duck Governor Taft [ohio.gov] -- who stands a snowball's chance in Hell of moving on to the U.S. Senate, we know him too well to advance him -- we get the worst of both worlds. Not only do we get the spend-thrift tendencies for which Republicans have historically been known, we get the urge to tax that is usually attributed to Democrats.
Basically with our current Ohio-brand Republican government in place, Ohio taxpayers get screwed, and we don't even get held close and kissed.
More stupid Ohio Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
One other stupid thing they are doing here in OH is they want to charge parking at State Parks. 5 per day or a pass for 25 that let's you park at any park. I believe they charge out of staters more. Yep....just make people NOT want to come to your little used State Park.
Ohio's governor is so bad for you politically if your a republican, that GW did not want to even be seen with him.
Not just taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
"Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam."
If it was just taxes, I'd think that they woulnd't bother with the apprenticeship, test, etc.
supreme court ....what say ye? (Score:3, Insightful)
The FTC regulates that. This law would
give Ohio power that the Federal government
has. So IMHO (IANAL) this would be un-constitutional. Whay say ye, supreme court?
Re:rediculous (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you lived in the US long?
Any source of revenue a city/state/federal tax can draw on, it eventually will.
If the law doesn't very specifically exempt anyone that sells under, say, $10k per year on eBay, you can expect to hear about this getting badly abused about six months from now.
Or do you really consider your typical neighborhood pot dealer; eight year olds who throw a temper tantrum in school; or people who write zombie fiction - All terrorists?
People worry about the "slippery slope" of bad laws because they can and will get applied as broadly as The Powers That Be can apply them.
Re:rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)
"Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam. Failure to get a license could result in the seller being fined up to $1,000 and jailed for a maximum of 90 days."
Perhaps intentional, but nowhere in the article do I find one iota of purpose, let alone legitimate purpose, for this law. Presumably this is some warped view of Consumer Protection(tm). But it seems that this is more of a regulatory program for the State to bring in reveues where it thinks it is getting screwed. Pay close attention to the fact that they don't call this a 'tax'. Taxes are bad and Americans hate them. Hence a $200 fee and a $50,000 interest free loan is provided for the government.
If this works out (e.g. the State thinks it's successful) you can damn well expect an eBay Lite law, which does the same thing less the requirement for certifications for ordinary people who sell their one used iPod or other junk. The objective here is the bond and the license. The Lite version of the law would most likely entail a license only at a reduced price of $25 or some silly amount to start with.
Then other states follow. So write your politicians now (especially if you are in OH or a surrounding state). That'll allow them to bear in mind your thoughts when this sort of stuff comes to the table, rather than trying to convince them after they're already interested in the potential revenue stream.
Re:rediculous (Score:3, Informative)
Main Entry: auctioneer
Pronunciation: "ok-sh&-'nir
Function: noun
: an agent who sells goods at auction
That seems to me that if you sell stuff on eBay, you are an auctioneer.
Re:rediculous (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know that much about Ohio's politics, though their position on science education leads me to believe you've got some pretty goofy people running the state.
Re:rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:rediculous (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I can't see how this is anything other than a money-grubbing attempt by politicians keen to enhance their reputation by being on the "cutting edge".
Some politicians just cant cope with the fact that people can manage to run their lives without state intervention.
Re:rediculous (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem, of course, is that the government doesn't want to stay small because being in government gives you certain powers to act. For a good long while people kept this in check by paying attention to what was going on. Post-WWII, however, this country became a haven for drug-addled, overprotected retards because "The Greatest Generation" didn't want their children growing up with the hardships they had to face down.
Now, sixty years later, we have a country full of emotional trainwrecks who think the world is theirs for the taking because every authority figure they've ever known has either
a) been nothing more than an overbearing, rigid authority figure worthy of little more than angry rebellious backlash
or, more likely,
b) been a wet piece of toilet paper that always wanted to make sure they felt good and were never "hurt" by things like, for example, valedectorians reminding them that some people are just smarter than others.
Now the place is filled up with characterless assholes who don't have the balls to stand up to their government and don't care enough about what it's doing to shut down the corrupt portions. So you get stupid shit like this because some asshole in Congress decided he was going to flex his political muscle and go for a money-grab. 90% of the people this affects aren't going to know until it's too late, 9% aren't going to care, and the remaining 1% will be scoffed at for speaking up against it because, after all...
And we'll see whether or not Congressman Asshole fixes his bill. I'm betting he sends an amendment to the floor that never goes anywhere or eventually dies in committee because nobody cares enough about it to do anything more than create the amendment to try and silence the critics. Even then, if the critics come back, the blame for the bill's death is so spread around that the suits can just point fingers at each other until the critics get so frustrated they give up.
And this is how American politics (don't) work.
Re:rediculous (Score:3, Informative)
And in the interest of high standards, it's rIdiculous. That has to be one of the most mispelt words on Slashdot.
FOR VOTING OHIOANS (Score:5, Informative)
I have somehow found myself stuck in this godforsaken swing state and am subject to the inaninties of Ohio's brand of Midwestern legislating. That said, I still vote and I pay taxes.
Not 5 minutes ago, I phoned Senator Mumper's office to let him know that I am EXTREMELY displeased with this piece of legislation. The person on the other end informed me that changes to Senate Bill 209 were being introduced today (Tuesday, 8 March), but I continued to explain the reason for my feelngs.
My two objections were that 1) this legislation on the face of it appears to conflict with Congress's Interstate Commerce Clause which prohibits states from enacting legislation that will impede commerce between the states, and 2) the software on eBay is what does the auctioning, not the seller, and so the seller is in fact a client of an auctioneer, not an auctioneer him or herself.
I also provided the receptioninst with my name, address, and phone number, and indicated that I will be writing a carrier mail letter to express my EXTREME DISPLEASURE with Senator Mumper's role in authoring this legislation.
Oh, and if you came to this post because of its subject line, here you go:
Re:RIDICULOUS... it's fucking RIDICULOUS (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't they sell one of those on eBay for $20,000?
Re:This won't work...From an ebay powerseller... (Score:4, Interesting)
From any of ebay's crappy, canned e-mail responses: "we are just a venue"
eBay itself went through this 4-5 years ago in California after so many people were complaining to the Attorney General that eBay wasn't registered as an auctioneer (with appropriate bonding and all the liability that goes along with that, which ain't trivial). The AG's ruling was that they didn't have to, as they are not an auctioneer. They are a venue selling in an "auction style format", as ebay puts it, and the AG bought it.
IANAL, but given that ebay isn't a registered auctioneer, it ought not to be too terribly difficult to get judicial review on this in Ohio and have ebay (and other on-line sites like Yahoo's "auctions") ruled not a traditional auction and thus exempt from this mess.