Cardplayer article from lawyer - Favorable

[LearnedfromTV]

It's long. He basically argues that the bill's (Goodlatte's, *not* the one passed yesterday, so all of it may not apply) language is ineffectual, that it doesn't make online poker illegal, and that most of it is unenforceable. Very interesting, not exactly new commentary, but very well written and argued. Of course, this doesn't make him correct. I don't know if this leans more toward wishful thinking or exposing real weaknesses in the bill.

Comments?

http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/15416

[Blowup Doll]

Nice article. I hope he's right.

[DING-DONG YO]

I don't see how this article is relevant if it discussed something different than what was passed.

[jrz1972]

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
More than 1,700 online merchants accept payments through the NETeller system, and most of those companies are not gaming sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish the author had named one of these non-gaming Neteller merchants.

[Aytumious]

The article is quite old. It was also written by a woman, FWIW.

[Ali shmali]

[ QUOTE ]
It was also written by a woman, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]


???please explain this statement.

[Wynton]

I think she paints far too rosy a picture.

Among other things she says:

"Let's take the worst possible situation and imagine that your ISP blocked a company like PartyPoker.com. The owners of PartyPoker didn't build that company to its overwhelming success without some great thinking at the top. If the site were blocked, PartyPoker would just have to use its resources to find a way around that. For example, an international call-in number might be used to circumvent the use of a local ISP. Perhaps the gaming site would subsidize the cost. Or, the poker sites might have to have a thousand addresses. The federal government is just not smart enough, nor are there resources enough, to accomplish this daunting goal."

But even if Party Poker is smart enough to make sure people have access to its site, that does not mean that significant numbers of new players will be deterred from looking for it. She seems to be suggesting that access will never be impossible; but the worry here is that access will be hard enough that it will significantly slow poker growth and the introduction of new players.

Also, her comments about due process are all misplaced. The current statute provides for the necessary notice.

She's right that much litigation could ensue. But that hardly suggests that the bill would not do significant damage by deterring a lot of new players.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was also written by a woman, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]


???please explain this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the first two posts in this thread.

[Ali shmali]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was also written by a woman, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]


???please explain this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the first two posts in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO, i was about to put on my fighting gloves