FTC to go after bloggers - but it's an AP article so I can't freaking link it!

[Phildo]

i dunno what they are worried about , rising unenjoyment is going to cut a bloody swathe through the ranks of hobby bloggers anyways.
 defacto net control via loss of income .

Maybe.  Maybe not.

Two-earner family may economize when/if there is a layoff, but they are not usually out-in-the-street-off-the-grid-off-the-net.  Instead, now you have someone who may be used to being busy, poking on the internets, job shopping and other fu-ing off.  Probably be on at least a couple of blogs to pass the time whilst doing so. 

Idle hands are the devil's workshop, yunno.  I expect to see more connection on the peer-to-peer world and less and less of the Corporate-serf connection.

I putz on here and a couple other sites while doing bids, project shopping and design work -- I figure there are more and more of *us* all the time.

[yellowrocker]

I might have to move to Russia where they have more freedom than the US?

Whatever happened to free speech?

[cindy]

We were discussing on a different thread a new proposed Canadian law to allow police to acquire any and all internet info about an individual without warrant or probable cause.  Hasn't passed into law yet...hopefully, we can stop it before it does...but it is part-and-parcel of the same thing.  TPTB want to stop the free-exchange of ideas online, whether financially, as in the subject of this thread, or through intimidation.  Who knows what might be considered subversive in the future (criticism of the government?  It has happened in other countries) and, with a law like this, they can find you in a hurry and shut you down.

[Dry Observer]

The states are already trying to pass these laws which would pretty much deep six my ability to take ads. That's bad enough. Now the FTC wants to get in the mix. The article that explains what is going on is unfortunately an AP article so I cant even freaking link it. But Kevin at Cryptogon has some commentary that pretty much explains what the FTC wants to do.

Before quoting Kevin, I think it's worth mentioning that the state laws aimed at sites like LATOC (those that run affiliate ads like Amazon ads), the MSM's war on fair use, and these new FTC regulations all started getting major traction back in April. I can't help but think these developments are part of some coordinated war on the internet.

The MSM knows they can attack the blogs by way of financial warfare since running ads is how most blogs are supported, at least most blogs where you have somebody putting in more than 2-3 hours per day at which point the blog is essentially at least a part time job. Destroy the bloggers ability to make even the equivalent of $10 an hour from their work and they will have to quit writing or at least cut back:

Emphasis mine:

What has happened is that bloggers have blown the support columns out from underneath traditional media and the people who run the show don’t like that. The fact that some of us are able to survive by maintaining blogs must have come as an incredible shock to fat bastards in boardrooms across the land. That we are not “regulated” is unthinkable in the Soviet hive mind that governs the political economy of the United States.

Wall Street firms have made off with an unknown sum of taxpayer money and the mom who makes $800 per month from her blogs (see the article below) is going to have comply with FTC regulations?

Of course, comrade. People who read blogs can’t be trusted to think for themselves. And those swarthy bloggers, why… There ought to be a law!

This is what states do that are well down the path to collapse.

Why should I care about being regulated since I already overtly disclose my financial situation?

How much of my day will I have to spend on complying with this? How many forms will I have to fill out? Will I have to pay a fee to government regulators so that I can continue to make less than minimum wage to run this site? All of that is unknown at this point.

The above is taken from a post at http://www.Cryptogon.com that also has unauthorized AP content so I don't think I can link that either. Kevin is obviously a naughty, naughty boy.

Matt, with regards to the state laws, why not re-register your business in another state? Why not make your "primary place of business" your server, or the location of some dependable employee who updates or helps update the news page (since you were thinking about doing that anyway)?

If the entire U.S. becomes unworkable because of FTC regulations... then if a major corporation can base itself in places like the Caymans, why can't you?

I've noticed similar state tax issues emerging here in North Carolina, but it's worth noting there are 50 states, and the laws are set up so that the owner doesn't have to live in the same state that s/he is doing business -- assuming there's just one owner in the first place.

Or to put it another way, after all this forum ranting against "the Corporations," why not make corporate law work for you? It's some effort to go through, granted, but it's your livelihood right now, after all. You have the motivation to do it, unlike a lot of smaller operations.

[wiccawench]

Good idea Dry Observer. Matt could pick a state that is so far backwards down the line to responding to change and technology that it is likely to give him a good long time before having to change things again.

i won't make any suggestions for a state but i think it would be pretty easy to work out. 

[maurice]

The current issue of the Atlantic Monthly mentions a growing problem in the blogosphere of sites that
"rate" professional workers such as lawyers, physicians and others. All sorts of subjective trashings
are published by the anonymous "raters", whether those being "rated" want to be rated or not.
Even the lawyers cannot find relief from the courts, according to the Atlantic.

So it is no surprise that curbs on bloggers are coming through legislation.

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Matt, with regards to the state laws, why not re-register your business in another state? Why not make your "primary place of business" your server, or the location of some dependable employee who updates or helps update the news page (since you were thinking about doing that anyway)?

I've researched this extensively and it is not realistic. For one thing any audit would show I was obviously residing in CA even if the business was incorporated somewhere else. That would mean I would be an "agent" of my own corporation in CA, which would bring me/and or the corporation under CA's taxing authority. I'd then be opened up to being sued by any affiliates who had been doing business with me as they would then be liable for sales tax, penalties, etc as they would have been doing business with a CA business and I would have misled them about that.

How could they prove I was residing in CA? A simple audit asking for bank account info would show things like my rent checks paid to my landlord here in California.

If the entire U.S. becomes unworkable because of FTC regulations... then if a major corporation can base itself in places like the Caymans, why can't you?

FTC stuff is a hassle but won't carry even 1/10th the effect of the nexus laws for me. To comply with the FTC rules, I just have to make it very clear and obvioius that I make money from the ads or from say a tent or water filter I recommend. The only way I could escape the nexus laws would be to move to a state like Oregon and hope they don't pass a similar law. (Unlikely as Oregon doesn't even have a sales tax). But moving at a time like this? And being a Californian in Oregon? I think it's only a matter of time before they just start shooting any Californians who attempt to set up shop in Oregon.

Or to put it another way, after all this forum ranting against "the Corporations," why not make corporate law work for you? It's some effort to go through, granted, but it's your livelihood right now, after all. You have the motivation to do it, unlike a lot of smaller operations.

See above.

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Good idea Dry Observer. Matt could pick a state that is so far backwards down the line to responding to change and technology that it is likely to give him a good long time before having to change things again.

I've already thought of that, see my response to DRy Observer's post.

[skepticus]

If this new CA tax bullshit does go through, is there any chance of morphing LATOC into a publicly supported site?  I'm a member of a couple public radio stations up here in Oregon and I would gladly add LATOC to my monthly donation list to keep it going.  Anyone else?

[Dry Observer]

Matt, with regards to the state laws, why not re-register your business in another state? Why not make your "primary place of business" your server, or the location of some dependable employee who updates or helps update the news page (since you were thinking about doing that anyway)?

I've researched this extensively and it is not realistic. For one thing any audit would show I was obviously residing in CA even if the business was incorporated somewhere else. That would mean I would be an "agent" of my own corporation in CA, which would bring me/and or the corporation under CA's taxing authority. I'd then be opened up to being sued by any affiliates who had been doing business with me as they would then be liable for sales tax, penalties, etc as they would have been doing business with a CA business and I would have misled them about that.

How could they prove I was residing in CA? A simple audit asking for bank account info would show things like my rent checks paid to my landlord here in California.

If the entire U.S. becomes unworkable because of FTC regulations... then if a major corporation can base itself in places like the Caymans, why can't you?

FTC stuff is a hassle but won't carry even 1/10th the effect of the nexus laws for me. To comply with the FTC rules, I just have to make it very clear and obvioius that I make money from the ads or from say a tent or water filter I recommend. The only way I could escape the nexus laws would be to move to a state like Oregon and hope they don't pass a similar law. (Unlikely as Oregon doesn't even have a sales tax). But moving at a time like this? And being a Californian in Oregon? I think it's only a matter of time before they just start shooting any Californians who attempt to set up shop in Oregon.

Or to put it another way, after all this forum ranting against "the Corporations," why not make corporate law work for you? It's some effort to go through, granted, but it's your livelihood right now, after all. You have the motivation to do it, unlike a lot of smaller operations.

See above.

Yes, but this is the whole point of being an incorporated business -- the business is a "separate legal entity" from the owner. So if your server is out of state, if the person or persons doing the primary update of the news section is out of state, and if your business is incorporated out of state, who cares if the owner is receiving the profits in state? Every major corporation in the world has shareholders or stockholders taking profits out of the state/province where they're incorporated.

If you really have to, hire some dirt-cheap, one-room office near your out-of-state update guy/gal, and have them go in fairly regularly to update the site on their laptop or something. You can name that location as your primary place of business -- accurately -- and move on from there. Believe it or not, Matt, you can make yourself less than indispensable to your business, especially on paper.

[Doom2Spare]

Membership anyone?  I'm in for $10.00 / month fee.    Matt, have you ever thought about taking your show on the road?  How many people on this site would pay to have Matt come and give a seminar on peak oil - community preparedness?   

Just a thought

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Membership anyone?  I'm in for $10.00 / month fee.    Matt, have you ever thought about taking your show on the road?  How many people on this site would pay to have Matt come and give a seminar on peak oil - community preparedness?   

Just a thought

I'll definitely give the monthly fee a thinking over. As far as "going on the road" I'm too involved in my preps here to go on the po talk circuit.

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

Yes, but this is the whole point of being an incorporated business -- the business is a "separate legal entity" from the owner. So if your server is out of state, if the person or persons doing the primary update of the news section is out of state, and if your business is incorporated out of state, who cares if the owner is receiving the profits in state? Every major corporation in the world has shareholders or stockholders taking profits out of the state/province where they're incorporated.

If you really have to, hire some dirt-cheap, one-room office near your out-of-state update guy/gal, and have them go in fairly regularly to update the site on their laptop or something. You can name that location as your primary place of business -- accurately -- and move on from there. Believe it or not, Matt, you can make yourself less than indispensable to your business, especially on paper.

I've looked into this. Just by me updating the site from a CA location, the corporation would be considered to have an agent in CA. Which would bring it under CA's tax laws which means any non-CA affiliates would have to pay taxes on any sales made by way of the new corporation

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

This guy is a CA fellow attorney, I've been reading all his posts and exchanged email with him. He really knows what he is talking about:

Several states have inserted the "Amazon Tax" (affiliate-nexus) language into their state budget bills. We've heard about states like California, where bills were already pending; however, other states (including Rhode Island) appear to be jumping on the bandwagon.

It certainly won't surprise me if we don't actually find out about this language being in some bills until many weeks after they become law, in several states.

This may create some very tricky problems for publishers and merchants, especially if these are enacted as "urgency" or "immediately effective" laws.

In such states, publishers and merchants may not even learn about the laws' enactment until it's too late: if the merchant processes orders (referred by in-state publishers) that meet the laws' threshhold ($2,000 or $10,000) after the effective date but before they learn about the laws, they may be forced to pay the sales tax (even though they didn't actually collect it from the consumer), and to collect the tax going forward.

Another option, of course, is for merchants to simply disobey these unconstitutional laws, and deal with any possible enforcement actions if states initiate them. (Has anyone heard about any "demand letters" or other enforcement action by New York's tax agency?)

However, merchants who don't want to accept the risks, and who intend to terminate affiliates in states with "Amazon Taxes" (affiliate-nexus language), should probably consider just shutting down their entire affiliate programs, or limiting them only to affiliates who don't reside in U.S. jurisdictions with sales taxes. (In other words, they'd accept U.S. affiliates from only five of the smallest U.S. states.)

There are more concerns, of course: as written, the "Amazon Tax" or affiliate-nexus language in these laws is incredibly broad, and facially includes ALL advertising in ALL media (not just performance-based advertising, and not just online advertising and sales). If any state chooses to enforce the law literally, or to interpret it more broadly than New York's tax agency interpreted this language, then it might not even matter whether a merchant has an "affiliate program" or any kind of performance-based advertising program, nor whether the merchant sells online (vs. phone- or mail-order).

Original post: http://forum.abestweb.com/showthread.php?p=941852#post941852

[Dry Observer]

Yes, but this is the whole point of being an incorporated business -- the business is a "separate legal entity" from the owner. So if your server is out of state, if the person or persons doing the primary update of the news section is out of state, and if your business is incorporated out of state, who cares if the owner is receiving the profits in state? Every major corporation in the world has shareholders or stockholders taking profits out of the state/province where they're incorporated.

If you really have to, hire some dirt-cheap, one-room office near your out-of-state update guy/gal, and have them go in fairly regularly to update the site on their laptop or something. You can name that location as your primary place of business -- accurately -- and move on from there. Believe it or not, Matt, you can make yourself less than indispensable to your business, especially on paper.

I've looked into this. Just by me updating the site from a CA location, the corporation would be considered to have an agent in CA. Which would bring it under CA's tax laws which means any non-CA affiliates would have to pay taxes on any sales made by way of the new corporation

But you were talking a while back about having someone else update the site for you. Could you simply do that, full time? Have someone take up updating and forum supermoderation (if necessary)?

To be blunt, I think your site would be much more easily made independent of California than most. You don't have to update the forums. At all. That activity is handled by the posters. You don't have to update the news page... you were already talking about dumping that responsibility, even if you may not want to spend the cash on an employee at this stage.

So what's really holding you to the site? Why not set it up to operate independently, and just send you the cash?


Thanks to your raising the subject, by the way, I just wrote up an article on ways you can plausibly relocate online blog businesses out of state -- but to be blunt, most ordinary bloggers don't have the options you do, Matt. If all you have to do is incorporate out of state and stop working on the site, heck, do it.