Originally posted by RDCollins: Good article on the subject in today's (1/7/08) Los Angeles Times Business Section entitled Putting a Cork in Internet Wine Sales:
Note that you may need to register to read the article -- registration is free.
Good article.
"But Craig Wolf, chief executive of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America Inc., the main industry trade group, defended the efforts to make all sales of alcoholic beverages move through a middle tier.
"Wholesalers think that direct shipping is a bad public policy choice," Wolf said. "We have never had an economic model for alcohol, it is a social model."
Face-to-face transactions are more likely to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors and alcoholics, he argued." "
How do distributors keep alcoholics from buying wine? THIS is their argument?
Posts: 1176 | Location: Atlanta | Registered: Sep 02, 2006
Money,Money! here in Mich the Big News Papers did an acticle on how much money the Wholesalers had given to the local, state , an county Rep's(campaign funds) and we the people made the call's an shipping law's changed! the Gov. Senators and local Rep backed off! what was said was- WHO DO YOU WORK FOR!!!!!!! Money, money ,money!
Originally posted by SD-Wineaux: Personally, I don't think that this issue is deserving of a moral sub-context.
Nor do I, unless morality drives the rule of law or to the extent that it is "wrong" to break a law.
Morality has nothing to do with the rule of law. Laws are made by those in power to compile others to do as they say. There is nothing moral about that. Morality is at a completly different level then laws, and as no direct corralation. Sometimes the moral thing to do is to disobey the law. Although I can see how as a lawyer you are unable to understand that. What I don't understand is how you can have to gall to call others amoral if they believe that they are not required to follow a blatantly unconstitutional law.
Remember to always aim high, that way you won't get any on your shoes.
I suppose if you suspect your neighbors of indulging in illegal sex acts, it might be fair to entrap them and turn them in.
Depends on whether he's banging my wife or daughter -- or some little kid from the park.
Exactly what I was getting at. If wine.com finds that another retailer is intentionally selling to minors, or selling counterfeit wine, I say, "turn them in".
The situation at hand, though, is that wine.com is entrapping and turning in other retailers for violating regulations that wine.com themselves believe are wrong.
Wine.com has a perfect right to try and maximize their profits by whatever means they see fit. Just don't try and tell me that I also do not have the right to be outraged if their tactics make my prices higher and choices less. Which is exactly what will happen if retailers are scared off from shipping to me.
Remember to always aim high, that way you won't get any on your shoes.
Wine.com has a perfect right to try and maximize their profits by whatever means they see fit. Just don't try and tell me that I also do not have the right to be outraged if their tactics make my prices higher and choices less. Which is exactly what will happen if retailers are scared off from shipping to me.
Again, VT2IT sums it up perfectly! Thanks for continuing to bring clarity to this discussion!
I hope all of you 'holier-than-thou' folks who are supportive of wine.com's tactics don't have any problems securing that special bottle of wine you've been looking for.
wine.com still sucks *ss...
Posts: 940 | Location: Ellicott City, MD | Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Originally posted by bez780: Money,Money! here in Mich the Big News Papers did an acticle on how much money the Wholesalers had given to the local, state , an county Rep's(campaign funds) and we the people made the call's an shipping law's changed! the Gov. Senators and local Rep backed off! what was said was- WHO DO YOU WORK FOR!!!!!!! Money, money ,money!
This is how it's SUPPOSED to work! We should discuss this over a great Pinot Noir some time, bez
Wine.com has a perfect right to try and maximize their profits by whatever means they see fit. Just don't try and tell me that I also do not have the right to be outraged if their tactics make my prices higher and choices less. Which is exactly what will happen if retailers are scared off from shipping to me.
Again, VT2IT sums it up perfectly! Thanks for continuing to bring clarity to this discussion!
I hope all of you 'holier-than-thou' folks who are supportive of wine.com's tactics don't have any problems securing that special bottle of wine you've been looking for.
wine.com still sucks *ss...
Hear hear!!
Hey is for Horses.
Posts: 1259 | Location: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 06, 2007
But something smells with Wine.com! they must have given and given an got nothing! learn the hard way ! the vote comes from the people!!!!!!!!!!! think about it! they have and still making more then the winery's so i say just tell your friendly store's,to watch who they sell to!!!!
The one good thing about this is that it has finally got me mad enough to contribute to SWRA. I strongly encourage all who hate the shipping laws to do the same. Link
Remember to always aim high, that way you won't get any on your shoes.
Originally posted by VT2IT: Although I can see how as a lawyer you are unable to understand that. What I don't understand is how you can have to gall to call others amoral if they believe that they are not required to follow a blatantly unconstitutional law.
Sorry VT2IT -- if you had gone to law school and taken the oath when you were admitted to the bar, you would understand thas as a law-abiding member of society, you have no right to cherry-pick the laws that you decide to obey. It is all or nothing.
Perhaps you should read a little Shakespeare. In Henry VI, the classic line of Dick the Butler is "THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET'S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS."
That's a famous line, quoted by many lawyer haters out there. Of course if you read the play in context, you'll understand that Dick the Butler is advocating lawlessness and revolution, and his starting point for revolution is to kill all the lawyers.
So, VT2IT, are you being a Dick? Methinks so.
You're not doing anything but advocating lawlessness, and that is truly amoral. And what makes it worse is that you're cloaking it as civil disobedience which is especially abhorrent.
----------------------- Le vin français est inférieur Du vin français est surestimé Le vin français suce
Posts: 3000 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: Jan 10, 2004
GPN, I think you're taking your agrument too far, but you do make me laugh!
Someone who advocates ignoring wine shipping laws has no moral standards? Why does this have to be painted in black and white colors only? I personally don't see this particular as even being that far into the gray.
Posts: 1781 | Location: San Diego, CA | Registered: Nov 19, 2005
Originally posted by SD-Wineaux: GPN, I think you're taking your agrument too far, but you do make me laugh!
Someone who advocates ignoring wine shipping laws has no moral standards? Why does this have to be painted in black and white colors only? I personally don't see this particular as even being that far into the gray.
I actually agree with him as it relates to business. I hold businesses to a higher standard than individual consumers who are just trying to sell off some excess wine.
Originally posted by SD-Wineaux: GPN, I think you're taking your agrument too far, but you do make me laugh!
Someone who advocates ignoring wine shipping laws has no moral standards? Why does this have to be painted in black and white colors only? I personally don't see this particular as even being that far into the gray.
Of course.
I'm just trying to point out the slippery slope. Today we're critical of wine.com. Tomorrow we'll advocate shipping prescriptions from Canada. The day-after-tomorrow we'll say snorting coke is a victimless offense. Next week we'll legalize prostitution. Next month we'll do away with the EPA. Next year we'll get rid of the 12-man jury. We can revoke habeas corpus next, and then do away with general elections.
I applaud VT2IT for contributing to the SWRA. That's the way to advocate change. Criticizing lawyers for being in favor of enforcing the laws on the books is a cheap shot, though, and I've got to call him on it.
whoops - I had to slide off of my high horse for a few moments to correct my spelling of "habeas" so they wouldn't revoke my JD.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Golf&Pinot Nut,
----------------------- Le vin français est inférieur Du vin français est surestimé Le vin français suce
Posts: 3000 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut: I'm just trying to point out the slippery slope. Today we're critical of wine.com. Tomorrow we'll advocate shipping prescriptions from Canada. The day-after-tomorrow we'll say snorting coke is a victimless offense. Next week we'll legalize prostitution. Next month we'll do away with the EPA. Next year we'll get rid of the 12-man jury. We can revoke habeous corpus next, and then do away with general elections.
The idea of a slippery slope is frequently a logical fallacy.
---------- I've got a few bottles of the Old Winyards left. 1296 - very good year. Almost as old as I am, it was laid down by my father. What say we open one, eh?
Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut: I'm just trying to point out the slippery slope. Today we're critical of wine.com. Tomorrow we'll advocate shipping prescriptions from Canada. The day-after-tomorrow we'll say snorting coke is a victimless offense. Next week we'll legalize prostitution. Next month we'll do away with the EPA. Next year we'll get rid of the 12-man jury. We can revoke habeous corpus next, and then do away with general elections.
The idea of a slippery slope is frequently a logical fallacy.
Absolutely. Once we got to "legalize prositution", everyone's too busy to bother with the rest of that list.
Laws have everything to do with morality. They were always enacted and conjured as a result of codifying "community standards" on a certain issue alongside principles of equity, justice, etc.
But what Wine.com is doing is clearly taking the law into their own hands. There is nothing altruistic about wine.com's actions; it is motivated by their bottom line. If they were so concerned about these laws, they should be more vigourous in lobbying their politicians to do something about it.
*********************** "I have drunk not to the clouding of my reason, but just so much that I can still surely distinguish the syllables with my tongue." Athenaeus
Posts: 3389 | Location: montreal | Registered: Feb 21, 2004
But you have to admit that in today's environment, it is much better to use the laws to gain a business advantage than to gain an advantage by flouting, ignoring, or breaking the law.
I guess part of the problem I have with the whole thing is that we've got a whole cadre of people who are condemning wine.com while refusing to label the retailers who are breaking the rules as shady and/or unfair. It is as if you're turning your head on the cheating and then condemning the whistle-blowers to boot.
----------------------- Le vin français est inférieur Du vin français est surestimé Le vin français suce
Posts: 3000 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: Jan 10, 2004
I want to point out again that wine.com is not crusading for the sake of righteousness. They are turning in retailers for violating laws that they themselves think are wrong. They say they are "seeking a level playing field". That is either supremely stupid or disingenuous. Wine.com is seeking to leverage the advantage they have in being able to establish a physical presence in the various states. They know that most small retailers cannot hope to do so.
Imagine this- wine.com sets up a shell company that takes order from individuals who are live in states that do not allow out of state shipments. Then they turn in the individuals who make orders to the state authorities. Legal? Morally correct?
Originally posted by pape du neuf: wine.com is not crusading for the sake of righteousness. They are turning in retailers for violating laws that they themselves think are wrong. They say they are "seeking a level playing field".
So let me get this straight. They're in competition with a whole bunch of other companies-- all of whom (wine.com included) want the laws changed so their businesses will be more profitable. Have I got it right so far?
And then wine.com has the audacity to turn in their competition that has decided (for the sake of their own profts) to ignore the laws that are supposed to be constraining all of them. I'm afraid I see neither an example of stupidity or disingenuousness in that scenario.
Allow me to deomstrate a sloppy (and very loose) analogy: all pitchers (or almost all of them) could pitch a baseball that is harder to hit if they could use a spit ball or a vaseline ball. Its against the rules. But then you, the baseball fan, get upset at Greg Maddux -- not because he's throwing the spitball, but because he let's the umpire know that that his opponent is throwing the spitball.
My point,of course, is that bottles of wine are like spitballs when they cross state lines.
----------------------- Le vin français est inférieur Du vin français est surestimé Le vin français suce
Posts: 3000 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut: Sorry VT2IT -- if you had gone to law school and taken the oath when you were admitted to the bar, you would understand thas as a law-abiding member of society, you have no right to cherry-pick the laws that you decide to obey. It is all or nothing.
Perhaps you should read a little Shakespeare. In Henry VI, the classic line of Dick the Butler is "THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET'S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS."
That's a famous line, quoted by many lawyer haters out there. Of course if you read the play in context, you'll understand that Dick the Butler is advocating lawlessness and revolution, and his starting point for revolution is to kill all the lawyers.
So, VT2IT, are you being a Dick? Methinks so.
You're not doing anything but advocating lawlessness, and that is truly amoral. And what makes it worse is that you're cloaking it as civil disobedience which is especially abhorrent.
As much as I love anyone who puts "First thing we do..." in context, I have to disagree across the board. But from where I sit, in no way, shape or form should the law ever be said to a proxy for morality. Laws are laws; morals are morals. They often intersect, but not nearly as often as they should. This is how it is, was and ever shall be.
Here we are all speaking in normative values with the bureaucratic nonsense that is the three-tier system as merely a factor in the discussion. Normatively speaking, you can argue that advocating or condone lawbreaking - I have not seen anyone here advocate lawlessness - is amoral, but man, that's a bad client to have.
Aside from wine shipping laws, there are so many other laws that are simply not enforced. Speeding laws. Tax laws. A multitude of sexual activity related laws that no one cares about, would last 5 seconds in a federal court and then cost some stupid municipality thousands in § 1983 damages and fees. Then there is immigration, and I'm not going there.
Before I go on - do people really flaunt tax laws? I have to admit with technological advances that seems a riskier proposition. I digress.
Back to normative speaking, attempting to tie morality to law is a loosing battle. Laws are not always clear. If they were, I would be out of a job. Even when the law is clear as to its text and meaning, it is often not enforced - seemingly on purpose - by the authorities. As best I can tell wine shipping laws fall into at least the latter and sometimes both categories. Either way, the law is a written "rule," but our legal system is a mesh of rules, people, relationships, cost/benefit as to enforcement, politics, etc. There was a good name for this, not efficient breach as in contracts, but something similar.
I said I wouldn't go there, but I'm going to. There are things like speeding, and there are things like immigration. These two are the poster children for the real law being vastly different from the written law. This reality is the fault of society (who breaks the laws) and the government (who writes them badly and enforces them worse). As for speeding, I could care less. As for immigration, whatever people think of the substance of the laws, IMHO the system plays with entire lives and should be something that is run above board and on the level.
Getting back to wine, its not as unimportant as speeding, but its close. If you're in the business, it seems to me that it is not that hard to figure out what you can legally do, what you can actually do (probably) and gage your business based on your own risk aversion. I have to admit, I don't have the stomach for knowingly breaking laws at work. I don't get paid enough.
Which brings me to wine.com's antics, its in their legal rights and business plan to try to use the laws as written to their advantage. It's within anyone else's legal rights to ascertain that, under their values, their judgment is poor. It's also anyone's right to determine that on the basis of the questionable "lobbying" tactics (and possibly that their prices before shipping do not beat my grocery store), browsing their selection is no longer necessary. Nothing I was ever taught as to the basics of capitalism said value based decisions and PR were not to be considered.
What I find confusing is wine.com's "We just want open shipping and fair competition." I fail to see how open shipping would benefit their business. If you spend the time and money to set up a distribution system to comply with ridiculous regulations, then it would seem to me that if the bureaucracy went away, you've just wasted money. Also, if states allow open shipping, and pigs fly, unless its got some well-tailored volume restrictions, Wal-Mart puts everyone out of business, save niche retailers with exceptionally good staff and management.
The only way this works for wine.com, again unless I'm missing something, is if the three tier system is kept in place and enforced.
As a person, I find the whole wining to the state thing juvenile, not calling it what it is. There are things we all understood better as 8 year-olds. Its not as if the odd legal reality was unknown or at least unknowable when the business started.
More objectively, it's business not personal. Such is life. But from where I'm sitting I fail to see the upside screwing customers, hoping they'll still buy from you as the result of them being screwed is their better options are gone.
ETA: For full disclosure, I have no interest in the business, have never shopped for wine at wine.com (they don't yet have a warehouse in the huge wine community in Wisconsin) and have never made a purchase from them. Good web site though says my web-marketing employed wife.
