Interesting article on advertising

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/14/america/NA_GEN_US_Online_Gambling_Advertising.php

[adios]

Spokesmen for several online gambling services declined to be interviewed about their advertising campaigns, but maintained that their offshore services are either legal or beyond the reach of U.S. law.

That argument was rejected by Christopher P. Blank, executive assistant district attorney for the Brooklyn DA's rackets division.

"If you're sitting in Costa Rica with your staff, and you're accepting bets from New York, you're gambling in New York," he said.

This seems to be a key issue. Not sure how the courts have come down on this so far.

[BluffTHIS!]

Ask Jay Cohen, formerly of WSEX, and he'll tell you how the courts have come down on it. He's been posting here lately. I mean regarding the point about an offshore operator taking bets in NY and not in Costa Rica, and not regarding advertising.

[Mike Cuneo]

[ QUOTE ]


"If you're sitting in Costa Rica with your staff, and you're accepting bets from New York, you're gambling in New York," he said.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see what bets they are accepting when they are running a poker site. It's not like they have hole cards. They are simply charging you a fee and providing you a place to play. PokerStars is not accepting any bets. Deposits are not bets.

When you go all in with AA, Lee Jones has no say in what the other guy does. PokerStars (and others) simply charge us to bet with others. To me, it seems pretty obvious, I know the law is unclear but how is my explanation not the case?

I almost compare it to arresting execs from ESPN for "accepting my bet" by showing the game on TV, even though a friend and I had a wager on the game. It makes no sense. Sure, ESPN profits from us watching, but they had no interest in the actual outcome. ESPN doesn't care who wins the game. Poker sites don't care who wins each hand.

Obviously, that's a suspect comparison (ppl will watch football without betting), but I just don't see any way poker sites "take bets". I would love to ask Bill Frist which side of the bet PokerStars takes. Also, what if you're "accepting bets" from New York, Ohio, Canada, Antigua, and the UK, all at once? Which laws apply?

[NeBlis]

I believe this will become the main issue in the courts when they finally screw up and try to prosecute. And it will be " If you are sitting in New York playing poker on a Costa Rican site then your gambling in Costa Rica "

[adios]

Thanks and I found Jay's posts. Jay apparently states that the U.S. courts have decided that the bet takes place at the place where they're received i.e. at the off shore facility in the 20th century. That may be true but it sure seems like there's been a lot of successful prosecutions including Jay's conviction.

The War Against Online Gambling (http://www.bettingmarket.com/dojwar50021.htm)

[BluffTHIS!]

He wasn't successful in his assertion, though it makes sense. His appeal got denied a hearing before the SCOTUS IIRC.

[adios]

....

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you're sitting in Costa Rica with your staff, and you're accepting bets from New York, you're gambling in New York," he said.


[/ QUOTE ]

And if I'm sitting at home, dialed in to my company network the code is my intellectual property. Anyone know a good lawyer?

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
Spokesmen for several online gambling services declined to be interviewed about their advertising campaigns, but maintained that their offshore services are either legal or beyond the reach of U.S. law.

That argument was rejected by Christopher P. Blank, executive assistant district attorney for the Brooklyn DA's rackets division.

"If you're sitting in Costa Rica with your staff, and you're accepting bets from New York, you're gambling in New York," he said.

This seems to be a key issue. Not sure how the courts have come down on this so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note the DA only rejected half of the argument.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see what bets they are accepting when they are running a poker site. It's not like they have hole cards. They are simply charging you a fee and providing you a place to play. PokerStars is not accepting any bets. Deposits are not bets.

When you go all in with AA, Lee Jones has no say in what the other guy does. PokerStars (and others) simply charge us to bet with others. To me, it seems pretty obvious, I know the law is unclear but how is my explanation not the case?

[/ QUOTE ]
Then if I set up a website where people can place bets with their known friends that wouldn't be accepting bets? Let's say I set up an escrow-like service for accepting last longers, TLB bets, etc and I take a 5% vig.

Am I taking bets? I would say so. I don't see how what PokerStars is doing ISN'T taking bets. They're governing the exchange of money for a fee. Bet takers don't need an interest in the outcome -- I don't see how the two things are related. The people PLACING the bets have an interest in the outcome.