All Chip In for Someone. Good or Bad Idea?

[raid]

I raised yesterday an idea, proposing to offer whoever is interested at RFF to send in $5/month towards a camera system. Once a month a drawing is done, and the winner gets a system. A participant could be committed to paying twelve monthly payments of $5, so there would be an annual investment of $60.

More than one person raised the issue of such a project being illegal and leading to closing of the RFF. Is this true? Frank suggested I post the idea in a seperate thread, so here it is.

Is this a "lottery" per say or is this a tame acceptable "chipping in" ?

 

[ywenz]

what stops a person from receiving payment of the camera and just say "sayonara suckers!" ?

I don't see why this could be illegal, local laws has no jurisdiction on the internet.

 

[dcsang]

Hmm... I've never heard of such a thing being "illegal" per se - after all, this IS the Internet - like really, gambling and pornography of all types is rampant - how illegal can it be to get people to willingly commit to $5 USD per month for a valid drawing of prizes vs people signing up for some *ahem* "photo site" that "automatically renews at $19.95/month" unless you tell them to stop.

Just my measely 2 Canadian cents,
Dave

 

[Frank Granovski]

That's a good idea but how does one know who is who with all those pseudos? 😎

 

[raid]

Maybe someone trustworthy, like Joe, could be the contact person who keeps a list of all people donating $5/month, and he could run a random drawing. In the end, it is a small investment with a chance to win a camera and/or lens.

 

[VinceC]

I don't see a legal problem. But I'm also not a lawyer. Participating would be kind of a club with monthly dues. Almost every fundraiser works in a similar fashion ... everyone chips in a little and gets a chance at a prize drawing. This is done at houses of worship all over he U.S., and I'm not aware of any recent police crackdowns on Bingo Night.

Biggest problem is ensuring continued payment.

 

[MP Guy]

I appreciate all the kind hearted people on the forum and the great generosity being shown. However, as the grinch 🙁 I must say that after this fund raiser, I would like to limit these event s in the future. Don't be upset, but there are many laws which govern how these type of events should take place. Since I am not a lawyer, I would just rather avoid any issues in the future. I hope you guys understand.

 

[RML]

I agree with Jorge on ths.

We had similar financial discussions when we were working on the first RFF book. We all decided in the end it should be a non-profit affair so we wouldn't end up in tireless discussion over how to distribute the money.

Money and finances are killers among friends. I never discuss these things with friends and don't want to start it here either. RFF is about rangefinders and photography. It's not a betting house or a financial institute. Let it remain so.

 

[kvanderlaag]

RFF doesn't stand for the Rangefinder Financial Firm?

...I sure signed up for the wrong forum!

 

[sf]

I personally don't like the idea, because it makes RFF too much like what it should not be. Once you bring drawings and all that into the game, we will attract all kinds of attention that is sure to lead to trouble. Not to mention, we have needy members (those who love the craft as much or more than another member who has scads of money) that may not win when a member who already has a pile of cameras wins and has little use for the gear, so he or she sells it. It is borderline unethical, but definitely raises issues.

Oh yeah, and once money starts changing hands in that manner (through RFF rather than person to person), things get sketchy for Back Alley and Jorge. What we want here at RFF is for this place to stay around forever. We should avoid, at all costs, introducing factors into play that threaten its survival.

 

[Kim Coxon]

Personally, I don't like the idea. This is a forum to discuss RF cameras and help each other. The folks that stay around, do so because that is what they want to do. They didn't sign up to win a camera and that promotes a certain atmosphere. I would rather keep it that way.

Kim

 

[iDude]

What Jorge and RML said.

 

[Andy K]

I think you might find this could qualify as a Lottery and therefore would be subject to gambling laws and taxes.

 

[Poptart]

I agree wholeheartedly that this is a very bad idea. Just as soon as we raise that money to buy me a condo in Malibu, we shouldn't do it ever again.

 

[taffer]

My personal opinion is to keep things as simple as possible, personally I can see you thought that idea with the best intentions, but I can see MANY things that could go wrong and end with that being a complete disaster.

Of course you can always awake a bull and play torero with it, but if it's sleeping, why just don't you walk around it instead ? 😉

 

[RML]

Hey🙂

But what about my island in the Outer Hebrides? 😀

ManGo

But ManGo, hardly anyone lives there! It's almost like living alone there even as we speak. You don't need you own island there. Now, if it were Barbados or so.... 😛

 

[jmilkins]

#1 I LOVE the concept of winning a camera!...

but

#2 I HATE the concept of losing RFF as it is now.

IMHO (which concurs with the majority so far) the first concept results in the second....

so I vote keep the $ out.

Besides..the Big Cheese has Spoken.

 

[taffer]

I've always wanted to visit the Outer Hebrides...

 

[jaapv]

No !!!

No !!!

Chip in for Joe- the best idea I heard in a long time 🙂 Happy to contribute,but
some kind of raffle/lottery- a definite no-no 🙁

 

[fotosniper]

When money get's intoduced into any equation..things often turn ugly...Now if cash was raised to go to a worlwide charity or charities (RFF poll needed) perhaps by way of an exibition of RFF users photographs and/or book proceeds... that would put us on the world map..
I agree, it may be a logistical nightmare to organise..but worth it in the end.