Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Government The Almighty Buck The Internet Politics

States Planning to Require License to Sell on EBay 274

RobMowery writes "CNN reports that North Dakota and other state governments are trying to pass laws to require people who are selling for others on Ebay to purchase an auctioneer license, attend classes (for a fee) and become bonded." From the article: "North Dakota's Public Service Commission is exploring whether people like Nichols, who runs a small consignment store in Crosby, must obtain auctioneer licenses before they can legally use eBay to sell merchandise for others. Regulators in other states are also eyeing similar restrictions or preconditions, moves prompted by the growing popularity of online auctions. To get a North Dakota auctioneer's license, applicants must pay a $35 fee, obtain a $5,000 surety bond and undergo training at one of eight approved auction schools, where the curriculum includes talking really fast ... Commissioner Kevin Cramer said he does not believe the law applies to people who sell their own goods over eBay, but it could cover those who sell property consigned by others for a fee."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

States Planning to Require License to Sell on EBay

Comments Filter:
  • by ChristTrekker ( 91442 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:26PM (#13793513)

    Those schools should be required to add "online auctions" as a class.

    Not saying that I agree with this, but if you're going to force the online guys to learn the auctioneer rap, the auctioneers better learn how to navigate eBay and similar systems. If the pretense for passing this law is being fair and equitable, then it had better be.

  • by nate nice ( 672391 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:27PM (#13793520) Journal
    It's amazing that we, the people, actually vote for people that are willing to do this. Note to politicians: Learn how to balance a budget like 99% of the country has to! Stop spending on crap and realize you cannot keep quietly taxing us. This is living free?
  • by Puls4r ( 724907 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:28PM (#13793529)
    Ok, someone who puts something on ebay ISN'T running the auction. Ebay is. The person placing the good on ebay sets the high price and reserve - but how is that any different than if you hire an auctioneer?

    So does everyone who wants to hire an auctioneer now need a license to auction? How non-sensical is that?

    This is, quite literally, a stab at taxing the internet.
  • Oh shesh... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by jamesgamble ( 917138 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:28PM (#13793533) Homepage
    That is just ridiculous. They have no way of enforcing it and even if they did, EBay would probably challenge the states. An easy way to get by it though would be to list all auctions as "Buy it Now" with the option to bid. That way it's like a regular online store and auctioning laws do not apply.
  • by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:31PM (#13793567) Journal
    While I agree it is good for those who are doing this as a business (consignments) - it WILL move on to other things. Also, it will be hard to regulate.

    It will also provide a new source of tax revenue, which is the main reason the gov't wants it.

    It will cause some issues:

    That $35 fee does not pay for the classes, which can be hundreds. And that surety bond - unless you are part of a company, you may have to front that money...that is a barrier to entry and not a lot of people can afford it. THe great thing about consignment on eBay is that you could get in for free.
  • by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:32PM (#13793577) Homepage
    Wouldn't this law be regulating interstate commerce and thus unconstitutional? The only way I could see this as valid would be if they required a license for one person from that state (ND, for example) to sell to another person in that state (intrastate commerce). I can't imagine that states can regulate international commerce either so that same person would be allowed to sell to Canada, etc al.

    Either way, I see it as a stupid idea. This is two things: a blatant attempt at getting more revenue for the state (though licensing fees), and (pure guess here) an attempt by auctioneers (probably a union of some sort) to get more money because their trade is threatened (in some ways) by eBay.

    Why eBay? Why not require it for garage sales? Why not go after silent auctions that all sorts of places run (like many school districts and churches to raise funds). Usually there is a little good a law might do, or you can at least see some good intent behind it. This would do anything but prevent everyone in ND from selling things on eBay.

    If you want to protect people from fraud, go after the NDers that are actually perpetrating fraud on others through eBay. Come up with a way to become a "registered eBayer" in the state so people can guaranty that you can be held accountable if you rip people off (but make it voluntary, and free or nearly so ($5) with no classes our anything like that).

  • by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:36PM (#13793617) Journal
    Yea someone putting something on eBay is running an auction. They are requiring people who want to be consignment auctioneers. Basically, if you want to sell something on ebay - but you are terrible at marketing it - they will do all the work for you for a fee. So they are not asking Joe Schmoe who wants to sell his old sweater to get a license. They are not asking Joe Schmoe who wants to hire a consignment specialist to get a license...they are asking a consignment specialist to get a license. This is not uncommon. The difference between a traditional consignment store and eBay, is that when you walk into a consignment store there is a physical location -you meet people; there is overhead. If you, however, hire someone online to sell for you, and they ask for the product first well they could be scamming you and this is another level of protection.

    I used a consignment person once; she asked me to send her pictures of my product...she didn't do that good of a job - at least she didn't do better then I could do so I ended up not using her again - but I am a little bit more savvy when it comes to online marketing (or marketing in general) then Joe Schmoe.
  • by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:38PM (#13793632)
    > While I agree it is good for those who are doing this as a business (consignments) - it WILL move on to other things. Also, it will be hard to regulate.

    "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

    - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

    > It will also provide a new source of tax revenue, which is the main reason the gov't wants it.

    Close, but not quite.

    > That $35 fee does not pay for the classes, which can be hundreds. And that surety bond - unless you are part of a company, you may have to front that money...that is a barrier to entry and not a lot of people can afford it. THe great thing about consignment on eBay is that you could get in for free.

    Now you've got it. The "great thing" is only "great" to people like the buyers of products on eBay (who want more goods to purchase from a wider array of sellers) and to people who want to get into the business without having to pony up a few grand of protection money (oops, "to take classes on how to talk fast!") to line the pockets of people who are already well established.

    In a free market, anyone can enter. If you give enough money to your politicians, however, you can have him erect artificial barriers to your competition, turning a formerly free market into a cartel, or guild. A capitalist doesn't fear competition -- but sadly, owning a small business doesn't turn you into a capitalist any more than going into a garage makes you a car.

  • by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:39PM (#13793638)
    How does it provide protections to people who give their goods over for sale? Please explain it to me.

    Just because the state charges a $35 dollar fee and requires some classes (from the same people who are lobbying for the class requirements), doesn't mean that there is any infrastructure in place to protect consumers. All it means is that people have paid $35 and took a class.

    And why are states so concerned about "protecting" people who gives things on consignment for auction (which there isn't a whole lot of), but refuse to get involved when ebay sellers are involved in all out scamming? It seems to me if this was about protecting people, they would go after the biggest and most desctructive criminals first. This just seems like a way to charge a new tax, and to protect the market of established auctioneers.
  • by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:39PM (#13793645)
    Are you talking out of your ass?

    Especially if this is a state by state law, it will become a patchwork of licenses here and there, unenforceable and the seller's will just relocate their "location" on ebay to a friendly state. Like a scammers do with Utah or Florida. Or Washington D.C.:-)

    I actually did selling on ebay, as well as buying where I got burned - so I looked into it.

    Most of the fraud done on ebay are by low volume sellers who build up their feedback to somewhere in the double-digits and then pull either a high-priced scam, or probably more likely a dump a bunch of lots (medium priced, say computers for a low price) and never deliver.

    Common sense is the best defense in this case, buying from someone that has an internet presence besides ebay (like a website) and that has a high feedback (over 200) that won't likely jeopardize it.

    If this starts passing left and right, it will kill small business, or they'll move from ebay (I hate ebay, I don't care if they lose money) into their own website and just sell the stuff for a fixed price. In fact, they can do that now on ebay too.

    Nowadays, when government usually do something (and other local governments want to be fast on the heels to follow), it's not for the good of the people, it's about control and increasing the revenue stream. I wonder if this is the first step toward greater taxes applied to internet selling, since they'll get the consignors listed on paper.....
  • by JesseL ( 107722 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:39PM (#13793647) Homepage Journal
    Is there currently a problem with people who are consigning goods on ebay? If there is, is this any better than prosecuting the problem individuals? Just what real protection does it provide?

    The government should stay out of everything as much as it possibly can. Almost every time the government gets involved in something unnecessarily, it is simply because someone sees an opportunity for more graft, the rest of the time it's because they are acting like overprotective parents.
  • by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:39PM (#13793651) Homepage Journal
    This law seems reasonably well intentioned, but as with internet sales taxes it will be hard to enforce via state laws. And of course for sellers outside of the U.S., forget it. Wouldn't it be better for states to make this a voluntary certification rather than a law. Sellers that have gone through the certification process could use it as additional proof of trustworthiness and the state doesn't have to waste resources trying to enforce a law that may be inherently unenforceable for internet commerce.
  • by ottffssent ( 18387 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:42PM (#13793672)
    What's particularly irksome is that this represents triple-taxing of the transaction. eBay consignment shops need a POP because people are more comfortable with that, and shipping an unsold item to sell it and then ship it again is just too expensive. So the business is paying taxes in the state in which it is incorporated. And possibly in all states in which its shops operate (I'm not familiar with the tax situation there). And certainly the individuals who eventually receive the shops' profits are taxed on income. The double-taxation of corporate income is reasonable because the corporate tax rate is low and incorporation provides concrete advantages which it is reasonable to pay for. I really don't see how this third layer of taxation is anything but an attempt by the states to suck a little more money out of the population without providing anything in exchange.
  • No, thanks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jdavidb ( 449077 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:47PM (#13793711) Homepage Journal

    If I want to hire someone to put my stuff up on ebay, I'll decide whether I want them to have a license or certification or not. Please don't try to represent me by deciding this on my behalf.

  • by lobsterGun ( 415085 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:49PM (#13793738)
    The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;*

    * Not valid in all areas. Some restrictions may apply. Consult an attorney before attempting trade within the several states. If redness or inflamation appear discontinue interstate trade immediatly and seek legal assitance.
  • by Reziac ( 43301 ) * on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:50PM (#13793750) Homepage Journal

    "It will also provide a new source of tax revenue, which is the main reason the gov't wants it."

    Exactly. North Dakota's state gov't is one of the most internet-savvy in the entire nation (there is almost no county, town, agency, or department, no matter how small, that doesn't have its own well-managed website). So I find it very hard to believe that this is being done from ignorance of what eBay IS, or how eBay differs from traditional meatspace auctions (which are still commonplace in ND).

    Small businesses in ND just don't have the revenue base to shell out for this sort of thing, so what will happen is that 3rd party eBay consignments will simply go away.

    BTW, Crosby ND is a farming town with a population of 1043 people, and is over 200 miles from the nearest city of any real size. I'm sure it must be a major hotbed of consignment sale fraud. ;)

    http://www.city-data.com/city/Crosby-North-Dakota. html [city-data.com]

  • by aquarian ( 134728 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:52PM (#13793766)
    ...has really killed off the sleazy car salesmen and predatory financing.
  • by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @04:57PM (#13793812) Homepage
    Step back for just a minute and look at the reasons why it was decided long ago that you needs an auctioneer license. Obviously running an auction takes a bit of skill. Recognizing bid raises, knowing how much to raise the price, knowing how long to wait for the item to be sold, and the whole "talking fast" thing are special skills. The idea of regulating it is to protect the public from unskilled auctioneers who won't get a good price for an item.

    Almost all of that crap is handled by Ebay itself. The person selling the item by proxy only has to set an initial price, describe the item, etc. These are all skills that don't normally require regulation in any other context. Why (other than trying to raise more tax revenue) should the states try to regulate trading assistance?
  • Even for consigners, why do we want this waste of time class? This will only raise the price of buying things online for consumers. I can't understand why we'd want to have this. Ebay's solutions to the problem (customer feedback, power sellers, etc) are far superior internet age solutions than this 1900's solution that the government is proposing. I seriously hope this is rejected strongly.
  • by tabbser ( 560130 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @05:11PM (#13793917) Homepage Journal
    I've written many letters of complaint to various orgs (BBB, FTC, Local Police) etc about both Ebay and PayPal, especially PayPal.
    Ebay and PayPal are rife with fraud and do nothing to protect their customers. These companies should be held responsible for the staggering amount of fraud their companies facilitate.

    Write to your local congressman, the FTC and BBB and tell them that you think PayPal behaves like a bank and you believe it should be treated like a bank. Also let them know that Ebay is littered with fraud and does shockingly little to stop it, despite being in the best position to do so.

  • by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @05:20PM (#13793988) Journal
    You missed his point, either deliberately or not.

    His point was Ebay is the auctioneer, not the consignment store. Ebay conducts the auction, not the person accepting items for consignment sale.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 14, 2005 @05:24PM (#13794033)
    Yes, but that decision to put up capital is incredibly voluntary. You're confusing the monetary definition of "Free" with the civil liberties version of "Free", the common mistake of any idiotic conflict theorist/marxist.
  • by Golias ( 176380 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @05:25PM (#13794037)
    The original quote is: "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want
    merely because you think it would be good for him."


    While that's certainly a bad kind of tyranny, I would say the kind where you torture and kill people because they refuse to think the same way as you about what pleases Allah (or whoever) is at least a little bit worse.

    Forcing me to pay stupid license fees is an annoyance.

    Calling me an "infidel" and brutally killing me because of my ethnicity, religion, or sexuality... that would downright ruin my whole day.

    Heinlein was a terrific writer, but he was a little prone to hyperbole when speaking of objectionable politics.
  • Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @05:48PM (#13794198) Journal

    I for one do not welcome our blundering politician overlords...

    How would you welcome someone who is already here?

  • by d'fim ( 132296 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @05:51PM (#13794209)
    99% of the country? I call bullshit. I believe that far less than 50% of American households make even the slightest attempt at working out a budget. Furthermore, the debt numbers here in America prove that Americans are most likely to try to solve their "budget problems" by overextending their credit. We then vote in polititians who do the same. An "amazing" coincidence, huh?
  • by rollingcalf ( 605357 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @07:39PM (#13794874)
    Every business has barriers to entry, which may include capital and skill.

    However, the poster you responded to was referring an artificial barrier to entry, erected by the government. Building a factory or learning a skill isn't an artificial barrier if the current state of technology inherently requires either in order to provide the intended goods and services.
  • by mosb1000 ( 710161 ) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Friday October 14, 2005 @07:55PM (#13794952)
    "Capitalism is a theory of production, not a theory of retail or professional services." Capitalism is a method of allocating a resources, that includes all labour, as well as production resources, and even intellectual property. There is no difference whether the resources be "professional services", as you call them, "retail" related activities, cogs, gears or prostitutes. It's all the same crap, resources that need to get from whoever produces them to whoever wants them.

    "Many businesses don't produce anything in the sense of the word used by economists."

    How is that possible? Have you seen the definitions listed in an economics textbook. They're usually extremely inclusive. You would be hard pressed to find a business that does not produce a good or perform a service.

    "Show me a single market of concrete goods for which all the assumptions of perfect competition hold."

    Well, since you don't define "perfect competition" that would be hard. But I can certainly provide numerous examples of situations where government regulation prevent competition, and thereby reduce overall efficiency. That's really what we're talking about here. The government is taking a highly efficient, inclusive method of commerce, and ruining it for not good reason. How can you even begin to justify such stupidity?

    "In the real world, all markets have barriers to entry"

    That doesn't mean you need to make new ones. That's like saying "well, people die every day, so killing a few people isn't really that bad". It is bad, and I don't see any reason the government should be generating excessive barriers to entry.
  • by ccmay ( 116316 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @08:40PM (#13795146)
    This is just a case of politically-connected buggy whip makers getting their pals in government to outlaw those newfangled horseless carriages. Economists have a word for it: "rent-seeking" [wikipedia.org].

    All failures of the capitalist system are caused by the involvement of too much government. We need to hack government at all levels into tiny, powerless bits.

    -ccm

  • by Molochi ( 555357 ) on Friday October 14, 2005 @09:37PM (#13795356)
    ... and those auctioneers who currently have a licence should have to go back and take the online auctioning class. No grandfathering allowed. I would further posit that the 21st century auctioneering licence should include proof of web authoring literacy such as something simple like http://www.mccc.edu/programs_noncreditcert_html.sh tml [mccc.edu] as this should be considered at least as important as talking fast.

    What's really going on here (probably) is the owner of an auction house has bitched and donated to his congressman. New buisnesses run into this sort of thing all the time. Successfuly fighting this usually involves doing the same. Form an organsation, collect funds, and throw money at a more powerful politician. Since you are now an influential group, you can make a set of rules that benifits your buisiness model restricting new entries to the market, including old style auction houses that lack a web presence(rare) or appropriately certified employees(not so rare, they seem to like to hire family.) Even better it can help stop fly-by night scumbags operating without a buisness licence from undercutting your fees.

    But seriously,

    I cannot, quite frankly, imagine that running an e-bay listing service has anything to do with being an auction house. EBAY is the auctioneer, not the lister. The lister is offering their expertise in giving the auctioneer provinance, acurate information regarding the history of the object. This same service is offered to people that want to put an item up for auction at Sotheby's. They are called seller's agents.

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Working...