What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.87 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Having researched this extensively, I can tell you that the National Association of Realtors has had a monopolistic hold on the listing service for way too long. I understand what the FTC is trying to do here. That being said, it's a slippery slope naming a website public property. For more on the justice department's anti-trust suit against the NAR, check out:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2005/211008.htm - procdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24and the list goes like this
1. their #1 religion is hockey
2. their beer is far supieror
3. their chicks...HOTTT, nuff said.
4. no george bush
5. now the ftc is controlling the internet - Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20This is totally a misleading topic. This is a specific situation detailing how the organization is determining what is a part of the listing they have. It does not apply to all websites.
Still, its an entirely wrong action on the FTC's part. But then again the FTC regime put in place by the Bush administration has been doing wonderful screw-ups left and right. Take the reclassification of Telecommunications that allows Telcos to consider adding what I've started calling 'Racketeering' fees for websites and Internet providers that want full use of the OC3s and T1s they've rightfully paid for once already. - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17This IS misleading, its just a blogger linking to a news release from the Austin Board of Realtors. We're not getting an unbiased review of the issue here folks. We're getting, and responding to SPIN.
I for one think that 6% for selling my house is total *****, so in the spirit of Anti Trust, I think there may be more behind the curtain than what this News Release from the Austin Board of Realtors is giving us.
The wording of "DeFacto public property" appears to be the Austin Board of Realty's, not the FTCs.
If the government takes control of an institution because they've been crooked, it doesn't mean that they're going to take control of Ford, or Microsoft, or RedHat. - bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Am I missing something here? How is this decision not entirely unconstitutional?
- rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I need clarification on #3. A link, image, video maybe?
- Fitzhume, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Tigro, you can't vote for lobbyists. They are the new, unchecked, 4th branch of government.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Here's the basis for the lawsuit: "In essence, NAR's policy enables traditional brokers to block their competitors' customers from having full on-line access to all of the MLS's listings. When exercised, the opt-out provision prevents web-based brokers from providing all MLS listings that respond to a customer's search, effectively inhibiting the new technology"
- MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10As one of your founding fathers once said (these are not the exact words) : "Democracy is a dictatorship imposed by 51% of the population to the other 49%"
- Hardcase, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13The reason that the FTC acted the way that they did is because ABOR has had a practice of excluding exclusive agency listings from all of their content, in an attempt to enforce their near-monopoly of full commission brokerage listings. An exclusive agency listing allows a homeowner to sell their house on their own without paying the 6% commission to the broker. ABOR (and the national organization) can't stand that, so they refuse to list those contracts, even though the multiple listing service is really the only single source of real estate information that is easily available. This is one of the FTC's first steps towards breaking this monopoly.
You may see it as a restriction of free speech by the government, but what ABOR and the rest of the real estate industry has been doing to non-full commission brokers is an absolute travesty! The next time you sell a house, ask your realtor if he'll waive his commission if you sell the house on your own. He'll laugh in your face. Then ask him if you pay him a smaller fee up front for the privilege of having the option if he'll list your house in the MLS. He'll laugh even harder.
If you think that Microsoft has a monopoly, you ought to be fuming at the National Board of Realtors. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17OK, that's just ridiculous. How can they declare that a website built and run by a private organization is now public property?
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@jramos
Perhaps you mis-read my comment. I am aware you can't ban smoking on a website. I was merely giving an example of the support the government has for declaring private things as "public" so they can control it.
Also, I agree a private website is not public property. I was just answering Wyzard's question about how the government could declare it as such. Do not interpret explanation as agreement. - Eccles, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14The summary is wrong. This a restraint-of-trade issue, not making something "public property", any more than anti-segregation laws make stores public property. Frankly, I'd love to see realtor fees get a smackdown, as they do engage in price-fixing, although this is not my preferred way to do it.
- kainaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The idea that only the last two Presidential elections were the only ones nearly split 50/50 is pure ignorance. Wikipedia even has the results of all of the elections so you can see how split the country has always been. So, the last time you voted for the guy who lost - half the voters did. If the guy you voted for would have won, half the voters would have voted for the guy who lost. You have the choice of making the childish assumption that half the voters are idiots or the mature assumption that half the voters have a different point of view. When it comes down to it, I don't care about the Presdient. He doesn't write laws. He doesn't ammend the Constitution. He doesn't write the spending bills. He doesn't take kick-back from the big oil companies. He didn't vote last month to keep paying for troops in Iraq through the end of 2007. That is 100% Congress. The screw the nation every chance they get because they know we're all bickering about the lame duck President.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10All governments redefine private property as public when it suits their ends, Canada too. But perhaps you just agree with which property-rights they violate.
- BuddhaChu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"The FTC maintains that "important public Web sites" must be under the government's control. This effectively means that any web site's editorial content is subject to FTC control under the agency's mandate to identify and punish "unfair competition".
Say what!?
a) Eminent domain can't be used in this case IMHO (I know eminent domain normally deals with real property...but this is analogous)
b) There has to be a Free Speech complaint in there somewhere. Queue the EFF... - tjordan90, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Fifth Amendment / Takings Clause violation, to be more specific
- thorgrim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Wow is this a crap article! It is completely misleading and and the title is a flat out lie. Apparently someone needs to go back and re-read the original information http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/07/austinboard.htm
- Tiemmothi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7They wont do this to you.. since you dont have a monopolistic hold on selling houses wich this is supposed to combat. This blog dosent have 100% of the facts that this fight is about. Its a bit short sighted and inaccurate. Not Dugg and set as inaccurate.
- quine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Agreed inaccurate.
Full decision text here: http://ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510219/0510219AustinBoardofRealtorsDecisionandOrder.pdf
As far as I can tell, it makes no mention of a sweeping judgment in declaring websites public. Though I'm not a lawyer, if there is something in there - could somebody please point it out? - PGvildys, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9UM... what? This is scary.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17The same way they declare restaurants and other businesses built and run by a private organization as public property; they declare it so, and back it up with the guns. Actually they don't even need the guns since most people seem to support it. A good way to find out if they do is to ask about smoking bans in private restaurants...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13woah.
Goodbye America, HELLO CHINA!
WTF IS OUR GOVT DOING TO US?
Our country is really going downhill guys, I mean seriously going downhill. I am starting to hate this ***** country. - dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Frat Boy... how old are you... 72? Your stories are sooooo boring."
Yeah... pretty boring compared to yours:
"How to dance like a white dude! VIDEO!!!"
"Jay-Z Comes out of Retirement! GREATEST LIVING MC!"
"The Madden Curse, is it REAL??? VIDEO GAMES vs. REALITY"
Would using Caps Lock in the titles help make the stories more exciting?
I dunno, help me out here. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I see the ripple effects of this case spreading far. However, the NAR has plenty of lawyers to appeal. I bet this goes to the Supreme Court.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm curious, where are you going to go? While the US is currently in one of its most authoritarian periods, I'm at a loss to think of another country which does not practice the same "philosophy" of controlling private property for "public" ends. In Britain you can get a fine for swearing in public. In Canada, you're forbidden from getting private health care. The list goes on and on.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I would seriously take down my website if they did this to me
- Avogadro65, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8All these stories I've seen from mises.org, and I just now realized they're from the Mises Institute, which I used to walk past every day on the way to class.
As to the story itself, I think that's just dumb. I say the ABOR can put up whatever listings they want at their discretion. There's no way a privately owned website can be considered public property. Maybe whenever I sell my house, I'll sue to have the listing put on digg, google, and penny-arcade, because websites are public property and I wish to use them as I see fit. - dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Next headline, FTC declared Digg website is public property.
- smellinator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Agreed. This is an issue of an organization (Realtors (TM)) misusing their monopolistic power.
Substitute "Microsoft" for "Realtors", and all the diggsters would be shouting hooray! If you have a monopoly, then you need to exercise restraint, or the government will smack you. We have anti-trust laws! - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Whoal Nellie, this is/would be REALLY bad but I need more backup. The blogger just links to an article, which is JUST a news release from the Austin Board of Realtors. I need more information.
- alfal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@tigro, I understand what you are saying, but aren't there more than just two options (GET OUT or VOTE)? What if I want to stay, voted and the other guy won? What is this "SOMETHING" you are suggesting?
- elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5LMFAO, ya all that gas the realtor uses certainly justifies a 3% commission. The average house in my area sells for $400k, that means the realtor is making $12k! I realize gas has gone through the roof but you have got to be ***** me. Realtors are just members of a cartel/monopoly with access to the MLS. If a seller is smart he will research public records of homes in his/her area, which are available online, and get an independant appraisal of his/her home. An appraisal costs $400, thats a much healthier investment than $12k. Realtors need to be exposed for the monopoly they are.
- geuisteses, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm the web designer for a realty company in Florida. I passed this article to the company president. Really not sure if/how this is gonna affect us.
- hostile.17, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It sets precedent. I would get out of the business myself.
- youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Except that they typically don't get the full $12k, maybe half of it and the average Realtor makes between 45k-60k a year.
And how are Realtors monopolies? They provide a service and their reputation brings in customers, they are no different than a used car salesmen. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's a huge set of laws that applies to the housing industry in particular. I'm sure those came into play here. Realtors are very heavily regulated.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ABOR couldn't stop you from using someone as an agent, only the government can (notice how you used "legally"). ABOR simply had rules for using their property (the website); if the benefits of using a MLS does not outweigh the costs, don't work with them.
- skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well, if the government is telling you what you can and can't do with your property -- then you've lost partial ownership of it and that part that you've lost now belongs to the government. That's why the headline states it's public property now.
- hifiDesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sensationalist headline? Yes. An article pointing to big government exerting force where it may be excessive and creating the possibility of a slippery slope? Possibly, yes. Only time will tell.
- scottc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The FTC maintains that 'important public Web sites' must be under the government's control. "
As far as I can tell the FTC does NOT maintain that. The Austin Board of Realtors would like you to think the FTC said that, but I couldn't find it the FTC press release. That, and "This effectively means that any web site's editorial content is subject to FTC control" are both opinions of the Board of Realtors and are quite a stretch from reality, IMO. - johnnykelley, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Will the taxes I ever pay ever go into paying for my servers? Doubtful. This sounds somewhat communistic...
- groovepapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So this is about unfair competition...
1. The FTC is basing their action on the FTCA Section 5. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000045----000-.html)
2. As best I can tell, the closest it gets to defining "unfair competition" is:
"Whenever *the Commission shall have reason to believe* that any such person, partnership, or corporation has been or is using any unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act..."
3. "The commission" right now consists of 5 people. (http://www.ftc.gov/bios/commissioners.htm)
So, basically, if someone can convince those 5 people that your website has a policy that is "unfair," they've set a precedent of forcing you to alter the policy of your site? - CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5OK people, get back on your medication. This is not a constitutional crisis. This is real simple. Realtors do not want you to be able to get your house into the multiple listing if you are selling it yourself. They want to protect their commissions. Services such as Assist2Sell and ByOwner are simple fee 'agents'. The FTC is saying that sales listings from 'agents' must also be accepted into the multiple listing and made available on websites that publish the MLS. This is good for you unless you are Realtor(tm).
- Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"totally unknown political blog". It's primarily an _economics_ blog; and it's hardly unknown; it's the #1 econ site on the web!
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Sensasionalist headline based on a dubious line in a totally unknown political blog.
Are we SURE making Digg more mass-market was a good idea? - TimW077, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
The state law allows ANY licensed agent to represent a buyer. The Multiple Listing Service (MLS) promotes this. The ABOR was denying realtors their rights. You could not represent a buyer (and get paid for it) if the seller used an ABOR agent. They were violating the law. You couldn't even use a lawyer to buy a house (which many times is cheaper than using a real-estate agent).
They actually got off light. In many states, you can lose your real-estate license pulling stuff like this. I should be able to use ANYONE legally allowed to purchase a house, and not be forced to go to your agent. - artman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3My sister is. So I'll be emailing her this link (and the one above by thorgrim).
Don't be fooled. Anything changed within the legal system usually gets no notice from the American public. Either because the aren't informed of it or...because the general public has the intelligence of a sack of hammers... - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2while i support people going out and voting and voicing their opinions, there is still the problem of corporations and groups like the mpaa and riaa that can pay people in droves to lobby for them and what they want, as well as any "contriibutions" that may slide under the table. the thing is i can't afford to go to congress and lobby for intellectual rights, online rights, and for the repeal of software patents. they can.
- procdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9add another reason to my list of why i need to move to canada.
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is