Antigua's WTO Case Getting Some Coverage [Archive]

TheEngineer

11-08-2007, 03:20 PM

www.rollcall.com/issues/53_56/vested/20875-1.html (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_56/vested/20875-1.html)

Tiny Antigua Roils U.S. IP

November 7, 2007
By Kate Ackley,
Roll Call Staff

With a decision likely just weeks away in a multiyear Internet gambling dispute between the United States and the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda, lobbyists who are keeping a close eye on the case are putting their cards on the table.

The international dispute, brought by Antigua at the World Trade Organization in 2003 over a U.S. ban on offshore gambling, could impact several industries — not just gaming.

That’s because Antigua, which has won its final appeals at the WTO, has moved on to the punishment phase and has asked for retaliation of a most unusual kind: the right to violate WTO rules on intellectual property. In technical jargon, Antigua is waiting for the WTO to say whether the country can suspend its obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, known as TRIPS. Antigua is calling for $3.4 billion in sanctions.

Groups like the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, which represent sectors that rely heavily on intellectual property rights, are keeping a close watch on the case and making their voices heard on Capitol Hill and with the administration. Sources said in some cases the groups are leaning on the United States trade representative to settle the matter directly with Antigua before their copyrights could come into jeopardy.

Perhaps no lobbyists in town are watching it more closely than the team at Black Swan LLC, a new lobbying enterprise that represents the Antigua Online Gaming Association, a group that first encouraged its government to bring the case to the WTO and the industry that could profit the most from the case.....

....The Poker Players Alliance, which opposes a recently enacted online gambling ban, said it has used the Antigua case in its own lobbying arguments. “The remedy that Antigua is seeking is really troublesome,” said the group’s lobbyist, John Pappas. “It’s remarkable that the U.S. has let it get so far down the road.”

PPA supports a bill sponsored by House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which would regulate Internet gambling, inasmuch as it allows for licensed and regulated Internet poker.

“We believe the Antigua case could be the driving force to passing a Barney Frank-style bill,” Pappas said. “Certainly we don’t want the U.S. to suffer any trade sanctions. If the [Frank] bill passed, they would remove their request for sanctions.” The Frank bill also has champions from the GOP side including Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

Pappas said the Antigua case is part of the Poker Players Alliance’s “standard talking points” when meeting with Members. “It’s eye-opening for some Members. There are Republicans and Democrats alike who are pro-free-trade, who never realized that our stance on Internet gaming has gotten us into an international bind.”

Shore called the Frank bill “a tremendous first step” and added that the lobbyists are working with Frank’s and Paul’s staffs on the details. “We appreciate everything Chairman Frank and Congressman Paul have done to advance this issue,” he added.

TheEngineer

11-08-2007, 03:22 PM

somewhere on www.bna.com (http://www.bna.com)

Bill Legalizing Internet Gambling Could Be Solution to WTO Problem, Panelist Says

A bill (H.R. 2046) introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to legalize Internet gambling is a rather elegant solution to resolve the United State's stance on its World Trade Organization commitments, Brian Pomper of Parven, Pomper, Schuyler Inc. said Nov. 7.

After several negative rulings in the past few years by WTO dispute settlement panels, the United States decided this year to alter its WTO services schedule in order to exclude market access commitments on Internet gambling (32 ITD, 02/16/07) . However, the move has provoked criticism for setting a precedent that other WTO members could use to rescind negotiated commitments.

The Frank bill would allow individual states to determine the extent of gambling permitted; allow Internet gambling to occur on the same basis as domestic gambling, removing arguments that U.S. laws are discriminatory; put into place appropriate protections instead of driving Internet gambling into illegal channels, and raise monies that could fund Capitol Hill priorities, Pomper said (81 ITD, 04/27/07)......

DeadMoneyDad

11-08-2007, 03:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
somewhere on www.bna.com (http://www.bna.com)

Bill Legalizing Internet Gambling Could Be Solution to WTO Problem, Panelist Says

A bill (H.R. 2046) introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to legalize Internet gambling is a rather elegant solution to resolve the United State's stance on its World Trade Organization commitments, Brian Pomper of Parven, Pomper, Schuyler Inc. said Nov. 7.

After several negative rulings in the past few years by WTO dispute settlement panels, the United States decided this year to alter its WTO services schedule in order to exclude market access commitments on Internet gambling (32 ITD, 02/16/07) . However, the move has provoked criticism for setting a precedent that other WTO members could use to rescind negotiated commitments.

The Frank bill would allow individual states to determine the extent of gambling permitted; allow Internet gambling to occur on the same basis as domestic gambling, removing arguments that U.S. laws are discriminatory; put into place appropriate protections instead of driving Internet gambling into illegal channels, and raise monies that could fund Capitol Hill priorities, Pomper said (81 ITD, 04/27/07)......

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the problem on relying too much on the WTO action.

How Much Is NOT Having Internet Gambling Worth? (http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/viewarticle.php?id=2295&sort=author)

"But the WTO also ruled that the U.S. was justified in being afraid of remote wagering. It is only because federal law allows bets on horse races across state lines that it is discriminating against Antigua. So the only damages should be for bets on horse races that Antigua's licensed race books cannot take from the U.S."

D$D

TheEngineer

11-08-2007, 03:54 PM

That's not the "the problem". That's an opinion (and your quote is taken a bit out of contxt of Rose's article). There's a difference.

KEW

11-08-2007, 03:55 PM

Not only is this a positive article for us poker players I am more impressed everyday with how often the PPA is mentioned in media articles..It illustrates to me that the PPA is working hard and is being noticed...

meleader2

11-08-2007, 04:08 PM

I'm sorry, I have to say it...

BOO-YA!

PPABryan

11-08-2007, 04:33 PM

Been pretty awesome how much press we have been getting since the fly in, this week alone two articles in roll call, the politico article and even a picture of John Pappas from a meeting he took Greg Raymer to in "The Hill". Also have more good news to announce later once it has been confirmed.

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Players Alliance

Skallagrim

11-08-2007, 05:38 PM

"But the WTO also ruled that the U.S. was justified in being afraid of remote wagering. It is only because federal law allows bets on horse races across state lines that it is discriminating against Antigua. So the only damages should be for bets on horse races that Antigua's licensed race books cannot take from the U.S."

I first though this too, but after a little further research (with help from Jay Cohen), this is not the WTO ruling.

That the US allows some "remote wagering" on horses and fantasy sports and state lotteries, is the reason the WTO rejected the "morals" defense put forward by the US. Once the morals defense was rejected, the ruling applied to ALL remote gambling, not just the horse racing, etc...

Think of it this way: Muslim WTO members typically ban imports of alcohol, they have a "morals" defense because they also ban any domestic production of alcohol. But if one of those countries was to suddenly let a domestic company produce only rum, they would lose the morals defense and could not argue that they should only have to let in foreign rum but not foreign vodka, scotch, wine, etc...

Skallagrim

JPFisher55

11-08-2007, 06:31 PM

TE, is there any way to get the PPA off its stance that the IGREA would solve US lack of compliance with the WTO Antiqua decision on remote gambling. Jay has repeatedly stated that this bill does not comply with the WTO decision in any manner.
What the PPA needs to press for is repeal of the UIGEA and exemption for online gambling from federal and state anti-gambling laws to comply with the WTO decision. Or the PPA can just opine that Congress needs to comply with the WTO decision.
I'm sorry, but every time I read that the IGREA is an act to comply with the WTO decision, I just cringe about the ignorance of our press and our politicians. At least the PPA does not have to join them.
BTW, Skall, a very good explanation of the WTO ruling.

spino1i

11-08-2007, 06:45 PM

"With a decision likely just weeks away"

Just how far away is it? Anyone know any exact dates or good guesses? Jay?

TheEngineer

11-08-2007, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
TE, is there any way to get the PPA off its stance that the IGREA would solve US lack of compliance with the WTO Antiqua decision on remote gambling. Jay has repeatedly stated that this bill does not comply with the WTO decision in any manner.
What the PPA needs to press for is repeal of the UIGEA and exemption for online gambling from federal and state anti-gambling laws to comply with the WTO decision. Or the PPA can just opine that Congress needs to comply with the WTO decision.
I'm sorry, but every time I read that the IGREA is an act to comply with the WTO decision, I just cringe about the ignorance of our press and our politicians. At least the PPA does not have to join them.
BTW, Skall, a very good explanation of the WTO ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will discuss this in detail with John Pappas.

IGREA can be modified to comply with the WTO decision. Frank has repeatedly said he'd love to do so, inlcuding at the June 8 hearing. His bill is what it is because that's all he could do and keep it in the House Financial Services Committee. I don't know if it will be amended for this, but it can be, especially with Rep. Conyers generally on board (I write "generally" because he's cosponsoring the Wexler bill, but isn't yet cosponsoring IGREA). Also, I realize Jay has his opinion, and I respect it, but there are other opinions, as you saw in the two articles posted by Bryan.

JPFisher55

11-08-2007, 07:16 PM

TE, trust Jay. He knows Antiqua's position which the WTO has always upheld.
The IGREA is a bill designed by Rep. Franks to appeal to Democrats who love to regulate everything. Which is better than Republicans, in this case, who love to ban anything that they find immoral. Without the WTO, decision I guess it would be the best that we could pass. So I don't blame Rep. Franks for pushing it. But with the WTO decision, a better bill is possible, which these articles illustrate.
The IGREA would need lots of amendment to comply with the WTO decision. States and sports leagues could not be able to opt out of the law. The law could only apply to US based online gambling providers, not to foreign based providers or foreign based ewallets. It would be easier to start over by repealing the UIGEA, exempting online gambling from all federal and state gambling laws and then adopting some regulatory and taxation system only for domestic providers of online gambling services. To mean anything this system would have to be competitive with foreign systems, which even the new UK's system is not.
I am just asking that the PPA show some intelligence on this matter. Opinion by journalists and politicians who have not researched this matter or read the WTO decisions should not be cited by the PPA as valid opinions. Otherwise the PPA will be just like all the dumb environmentalist groups who push the global warming crap or the idiocy that prevents drilling for oil in Alaska or the gulf coast. The minute that the PPA looks like one of those groups I am out.

TheEngineer

11-08-2007, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
TE, trust Jay. He knows Antiqua's position which the WTO has always upheld.
The IGREA is a bill designed by Rep. Franks to appeal to Democrats who love to regulate everything. Which is better than Republicans, ....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I don't claim to be an expert on this. I certainly respect Jay and his opinion, but that doesn't make it fact. It does constitute a well-informed opinion. Still, Antigua has clearly and often stated that they would accept many compromises. This could conceivably end with the U.S. opening part of its online gaming market and paying damages for what wasn't permitted. I will say the PPA has more than the opinions of journalists to go by on this.

Foreign companies could easily subject themselves to U.S. law via a number of ways. I believe this will be a requirement (though I personally wish it weren't) to ensure that cash flows of large amounts can be tracked, age verification takes place, and that opt-out lists are created.

[ QUOTE ]
States and sports leagues could not be able to opt out of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jay says this, but that doesn't make it so. The original findings were based only on what's allowed nationally (interstate remote horserace wagering). The truth is that the U.S. would probably pay any amount in damages before requiring Utah to allow Internet sports betting, both because the sports' lobbies are strong and because of the simple matter of sovereignty. The U.S. already demonstrated this willingness by withdrawing from the gaming sector of GATS.

I. Nelson Rose has a good article (the one linked above by D$D): http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/viewarticle.php?id=2295&sort=author

Hopefully we can use this to find something acceptable to Congress. This something would certainly include poker.

JPFisher55

11-08-2007, 07:51 PM

TE, I have a suggestion. The PPA ought to encourage its members to email the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America to contest the UIGEA and other anti-online gambling laws. In addition, the letter should state that if Antiqua is granted the relief from its IP sanctions then the member will protest by refraining from purchasing domestic DVD music or attending movies and instead acquire them on DVD's issued by a Antiqua based entity until Congress complies with the WTO decision by repeal of the UIGEA and exemption of all online gambling from all state and federal gambling laws. Please note that no member should threaten to distribute any such music or movies but only purchase such DVD's for personal use. Distribution would likely violate US copyright laws. Although the lawsuits by the Recording Industry Association of America against persons who downloaded music from Napster etc. and distributed the files to other persons would have been greatly complicated if the person had legally acquired the files under International (WTO) laws and treaties.
I suggest that the PPA draft a sample letter on these guidelines. The WTO decision is due on or before Nov. 30. Unlike our judges who are often late, the WTO has not missed its stated deadlines for decisions.

TheEngineer

11-08-2007, 07:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I have a suggestion. The PPA ought to encourage its members to email the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America to contest the UIGEA and other anti-online gambling laws. In addition, the letter should state that if Antiqua is granted the relief from its IP sanctions then the member will protest by refraining from purchasing domestic DVD music or attending movies and instead acquire them on DVD's issued by a Antiqua based entity until Congress complies with the WTO decision by repeal of the UIGEA and exemption of all online gambling from all state and federal gambling laws. Please note that no member should threaten to distribute any such music or movies but only purchase such DVD's for personal use. Distribution would likely violate US copyright laws. Although the lawsuits by the Recording Industry Association of America against persons who downloaded music from Napster etc. and distributed the files to other persons would have been greatly complicated if the person had legally acquired the files under International (WTO) laws and treaties.
I suggest that the PPA draft a sample letter on these guidelines. The WTO decision is due on or before Nov. 30. Unlike our judges who are often late, the WTO has not missed its stated deadlines for decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Writing to both organizations was an action item on my Fight for Online Poker thread for a long time. I wrote to both. Your ideas expand on that, which sounds good to me for us to do. I'll mention this to Pappas to see if there's anything we should do here.

DeadMoneyDad

11-08-2007, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I have a suggestion. The PPA ought to encourage its members to email the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America to contest the UIGEA and other anti-online gambling laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better yet why haven't our lobbyists talked to theirs?

If "our" people feel their "people" need a letter writing campaign to help push the relationship fine. Let's work hard but smart....

D$D

IndyFish

11-08-2007, 09:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO decision is due on or before Nov. 30. Unlike our judges who are often late, the WTO has not missed its stated deadlines for decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon my ignorance, but since the WTO will make its decision on the 30th (or earlier), why have the US and all the WTO claimants set their deadline for Dec 14th? Would the WTO decision not go into effect until Dec 14th if there was no agreement reached?

JPFisher55

11-08-2007, 09:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The WTO decision is due on or before Nov. 30. Unlike our judges who are often late, the WTO has not missed its stated deadlines for decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon my ignorance, but since the WTO will make its decision on the 30th (or earlier), why have the US and all the WTO claimants set their deadline for Dec 14th? Would the WTO decision not go into effect until Dec 14th if there was no agreement reached?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is for compensation for US withdrawal of its online gambling commitments. The Nov. 30 deadline is for dollar amount of sanctions, and IP sanctions or not, to Antiqua on its original case against US for discriminatory practices in online gambling.
They are two different matters. The former involves EU, Canada, India, Macau, Costa Rica and one other nation, plus Antiqua. The latter case only involves Antiqua.

DeadMoneyDad

11-08-2007, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The WTO decision is due on or before Nov. 30. Unlike our judges who are often late, the WTO has not missed its stated deadlines for decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon my ignorance, but since the WTO will make its decision on the 30th (or earlier), why have the US and all the WTO claimants set their deadline for Dec 14th? Would the WTO decision not go into effect until Dec 14th if there was no agreement reached?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is for compensation for US withdrawal of its online gambling commitments. The Nov. 30 deadline is for dollar amount of sanctions, and IP sanctions or not, to Antiqua on its original case against US for discriminatory practices in online gambling.
They are two different matters. The former involves EU, Canada, India, Macau, Costa Rica and one other nation, plus Antiqua. The latter case only involves Antiqua.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my heart I really wish this was the magic bullet for poker in the US. But even a casual knowledge of the history of the WTO will inform one that trade disputes are like an onion with layers and layers of over lapping agreements and disputes.

The move to try to stick to some established reasonable time frames is a new effort for the WTO. History shows that pre-Uruguay, that over 2/3 of the cases never reach the full pannel process and many disputes last over decades.

The US played a role in advancing the case for quicker and "cleaner" dispute resolution and now finds itself "hanging by a rope of its own making."

But as much as the US needs the rest of the world, the WTO needs to keep the majors at the table, and doesn't want a major "taking it's ball and bat and going home."

As many find after living in DC for any time, when it comes to government logic, reason, and winning because you are right have little place in the discussion let alone pre-eminence.

So the WTO is grist for the mill and potentially a useful lever in this battle to move the Hill. But I would hate for anyone to get their hearts crushed when logic and reason do not prevail.

D$D

JPFisher55

11-09-2007, 12:08 AM

D$D, I agree with you. I put the odds of the WTO granting Antiqua its requested IP sanction at only 50%. The other 50% is that the WTO grants some low monetary relief and no meaningful sanctions. In the latter event, I expect Antiqua and most small-medium size members to leave the WTO. In addition, China will ignore anything that the WTO does in any trade dispute between it and US, but it might anyway.
In short, the WTO is in trouble. If it grants Antiqua its requested sanction, then it risks losing the US. If it doesn't then it becomes meaningless to most of its members.
Of course, the iMEGA and BetOnSports case might lead to a favorable outcome, but the appeals in those cases will take quite a while.
I fear that this is the worst time for the disintregation of the WTO. But the morons in the Bush Administration don't seem to get it. We can thank the Bush administration for causing this dilemna. George W. Bush is the reason that I am a former Republican.

Jay Cohen

11-09-2007, 12:23 AM

Hello Everyone,

I'd like to make a few points.

First, as far as the date goes. It's supposed to be November 30th. However, that may not be the public date. Quite often the decision is given to the parties, but one of them must put it on the calendar of a general meeting before it can become public. They have general meetings every month, and they also have deadlines for getting stuff on the calendar of those meetings. If it is necessary to get this decision on the calendar before it can be made public AND if the deadline for the December meeting is later than November 30th, it may not become public until the January general meeting.

Now, as to the original WTO opinion. Both the original panel and the appelat body decision found three US laws in violation of the GATS. These were the Wire Act, the Travel Act, and the Illegal Gambling Business Act. Horse racing had nothing to do with the primary opinion. The only reason horse racing gets mentioned is because it was cited as one example of why the US's moral defense failed. They could have just as easily cited remote sports wagering which takes place in Nevada, or the many states that offer remote lottery wagering.

The reason it keeps coming up is because that's how the US has tried to spin it. After they lost the Appellate Body decision, they had the nerve to actually claim they had won. Which brings me to my next point.

I have been dealing with the media for over 10 years. Quite often they just regurgitate what they are fed. After the Applellate Body decision, I pleaded with a Las Vegas reporter to correctly report Antigua's victory. The US was proclaiming victory at the same time. (I think it's safe to say by their latest actions that they have finally admitted they lost.) Anyway, the reporter said they were going with. "Both sides proclaim victory." I said how can you say that, have you read the decision? She replied, "Well, the US is telling us they won." She didn't bother to read the decision, she just wanted everything spoon fed to her. She actually refused to read it when pressed.

Any lawyer who understands trade law and has read all of the material in the Antigua case will tell you the Frank bill does not bring the US into compliance, not by a mile. Could it be amended? Yes. But it's not close as is.

The sports opt out and the state opt outs are the two major items that make it non-compliant. This is a fact based on the WTO decisions.

The only people spreading the word that the Frank bill would bring the US into compliance are Safe and Secure and their hired gun Mr. Matsukada (sp?) at Alston and Bird. Mr. Matsukada is NOT a lawyer. He holds his graduate degrees in Japanese history. He somehow had some sort of senior job at USTR and is using that to make himself some sort of expert on the decision. He is stupid or he is lying when he says the Frank bill brings the US into compliance.

Why is he saying that? Because Safe and Secure and Alston and Bird are 100% backed by poker interests. Their backers (which I will not name right now) would like the Frank bill. It disgusts me that they feel they have to lie about the WTO implications rather than just backing the Frank bill on the merits. There are plenty of arguments they could make for poker and the Frank bill. They don't need to try and hijack the WTO decision.

They are the ones putting out press releases that claim the Frank bill will bring the US into compliance and some media outlets are putting it out there. Once it's out there, others take it as fact. So don't believe everything you read. If any of you have ever been intimately involved with something t hat gets a lot of press coverage, you know what I mean.

Bottom line is the US can't claim a moral aversion to some types of remote gambling while allowing others.

Legislurker

11-09-2007, 12:44 AM

the Nov 30th date is pushed back to Dec 14th.

Jay Cohen

11-09-2007, 12:47 AM

The December 14th date is related to the deadline for the "Withdraw of the commitment in the sector" negotiations.

November 30th is the date for the panel deciding the amount and type of sanctions Antigua can impose against the US. It hasn't changed.

Legislurker

11-09-2007, 12:48 AM

Guess thats what i get for reading what reporters write. Youre right the gd coverage has been sloppy and careless by the press.

DeadMoneyDad

11-09-2007, 12:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The December 14th date is related to the deadline for the "Withdraw of the commitment in the sector" negotiations.

November 30th is the date for the panel deciding the amount and type of sanctions Antigua can impose against the US. It hasn't changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank your for your posts on the subject in not only taking the time to post them, but both your candor and restraint.

D$D

JPFisher55

11-09-2007, 01:56 AM

Jay, I am an online poker player and I don't like the IGREA. I'm not sure that it is better than the present situation. Of course, I like Rep. Wexler's skill games exemption bill, but I realize that it does not comply with the WTO decision. You're right about the laziness of the press. I read the Appellate Body decision. Yes it frequently mentioned pari-mutual horse race betting as the example of domestic remote gambling. However, the decision stated that other examples likely existed, but Antiqua had not yet proved other examples. Clearly the appellate decision affirmed the panel's ruling that if the US permitted some type of domestic remote gambling, then it had to allow foreign firms to provide any form of remote gambling to the US market.
I did not realize that the public release of the decision may slip to January. I hope that it comes out sooner. If the WTO grants Antiqua its requested IP sanctions, then how long before they are implemented? I gather implementation would take some months and Antiqua will use the sanction to attempt to convince Congress to comply by legislation.

whangarei

11-09-2007, 05:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps no lobbyists in town are watching it more closely than the team at Black Swan LLC, a new lobbying enterprise that represents the Antigua Online Gaming Association, a group that first encouraged its government to bring the case to the WTO and the industry that could profit the most from the case.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Could someone clarify the lobbying rights foreign entities have? Why doesn't Stars and FT hire the baddest lobbying agencies in town?

whangarei

11-09-2007, 05:26 AM

Thanks Jay for all the great info. I wish you continued success in your fight.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is he saying that? Because Safe and Secure and Alston and Bird are 100% backed by poker interests. Their backers (which I will not name right now) would like the Frank bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a poker player whose main dog in this fight in the poker interests, this is very encouraging. On a larger level I hate obfuscation on all levels and I hope you win the larger fight, Jay.

DeadMoneyDad

11-09-2007, 09:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps no lobbyists in town are watching it more closely than the team at Black Swan LLC, a new lobbying enterprise that represents the Antigua Online Gaming Association, a group that first encouraged its government to bring the case to the WTO and the industry that could profit the most from the case.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Could someone clarify the lobbying rights foreign entities have? Why doesn't Stars and FT hire the baddest lobbying agencies in town?

[/ QUOTE ]

They have.

They also provide a good amount of both money and pros for the PPA. The fact that PS and FT (with others) have in effect help build an organization for the players is a step beyond.

My complaint is "we the players" haven't done all we can with that tool. Most have sat back and waited for others to carry the water. The PPA currently has less than one out of thirty self identified poker players as its members, also less than one out of fifteen self identified on-line players.

In "Field of Dreams" terms they've help build it, and we've come, some, but the players are not as invested enough yet IMO. According to the reports the money spent on fundraising has been almost equal to the amount taken in. So the freerolls are accounted in the budgets, at least the early ones.

D$D

whangarei

11-09-2007, 09:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps no lobbyists in town are watching it more closely than the team at Black Swan LLC, a new lobbying enterprise that represents the Antigua Online Gaming Association, a group that first encouraged its government to bring the case to the WTO and the industry that could profit the most from the case.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Could someone clarify the lobbying rights foreign entities have? Why doesn't Stars and FT hire the baddest lobbying agencies in town?

[/ QUOTE ]

They have.

They also provide a good amount of both money and pros for the PPA. The fact that PS and FT (with others) have in effect help build an organization for the players is a step beyond.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it the case that foreign companies do not have the same "lobbying rights" as domestic companies? Do you know the differences? Thanks.

whangarei

11-09-2007, 10:12 AM

From the Roll Call article (http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=365) :

[ QUOTE ]
RIAA spokeswoman Liz Kennedy e-mailed a statement saying her group opposes such a form of sanctions.

“If Antigua were to ‘withdraw’ its TRIPS commitments, it would simultaneously be violating other aspects of its international obligations — including under the Berne Convention,” she said, referring to the 19th century international convention on copyright law. “Moreover, it would presumably be permitting conduct that would violate its own internal domestic legislation, including its criminal law. Does it make sense for a country to expressly allow criminal conduct? We believe that it most certainly does not.”

[/ QUOTE ]

So the RIAA spokeswoman is basically saying there are other obligations besides the WTO that would prevent Antigua from selling cheap CDs/movies. Is this a valid point?

TheEngineer

11-09-2007, 10:14 AM

Thanks Jay, as always.

Skallagrim

11-09-2007, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
From the Roll Call article (http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=365) :

[ QUOTE ]
RIAA spokeswoman Liz Kennedy e-mailed a statement saying her group opposes such a form of sanctions.

“If Antigua were to ‘withdraw’ its TRIPS commitments, it would simultaneously be violating other aspects of its international obligations — including under the Berne Convention,” she said, referring to the 19th century international convention on copyright law. “Moreover, it would presumably be permitting conduct that would violate its own internal domestic legislation, including its criminal law. Does it make sense for a country to expressly allow criminal conduct? We believe that it most certainly does not.”

[/ QUOTE ]

So the RIAA spokeswoman is basically saying there are other obligations besides the WTO that would prevent Antigua from selling cheap CDs/movies. Is this a valid point?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not really a valid point. If Antigua gets permission from the WTO to ignore US copyrights, that would be the controlling ruling, not a 19th century treaty. Note that she "presumes" Antigua has a law against copyright infringement (it probably does but if this spokesperson were doing anything more than grandstanding she would have looked it up). It aint that hard for Antigua to change its law if it gets the WTO go ahead.

Skallagrim

MayorHerb

11-09-2007, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that the U.S. would probably pay any amount in damages before requiring Utah to allow Internet sports betting, both because the sports' lobbies are strong and because of the simple matter of sovereignty.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an issue you don't hear enough about any more. State sovereignty WITHIN the U.S.

Jay Cohen

11-09-2007, 12:29 PM

Just happy to be here guys.

States rights and state sovereignty don't carry any weight here. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause subordinates states’ rights to the national treaty power. When a nation enters into a treaty, it undertakes an international obligation that binds all of its organs (executive, legislative and judicial) and all its constituent jurisdictions (state and federal). A state is responsible for carrying out the obligations of an international agreement.

DeadMoneyDad

11-09-2007, 12:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The truth is that the U.S. would probably pay any amount in damages before requiring Utah to allow Internet sports betting, both because the sports' lobbies are strong and because of the simple matter of sovereignty.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an issue you don't hear enough about any more. State sovereignty WITHIN the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the structure of gaming laws in this country you'll be hearing a lot more about it. At least as far as poker is concerned. Even with a favorable WTO ruling and quick Hill action the fight will then revert to a State by State battle.

A "Civil War"? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

D$D

TheEngineer

11-09-2007, 12:42 PM

Jay Cohen

11-09-2007, 12:52 PM

I can't speculate where it is going. But if they tell them take it or leave it, they may have to face sanctions.

I really don't feel I am representing sports bettors. I like to think I am speaking out for Antigua's win which is comprehensive.

TheEngineer

11-09-2007, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't speculate where it is going. But if they tell them take it or leave it, they may have to face sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I'm encouraged by the fact that affected parties are starting to make noise. Just to be clear, I'm with you in that I hope it's all explicitly legalized. We should be allowed to spend our money as we wish.

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't feel I am representing sports bettors. I like to think I am speaking out for Antigua's win which is comprehensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did mean it as a compliment. While you may not represent sports bettors exclusively, you're the best voice for that segment of Internet gaming, IMO.

DeadMoneyDad

11-09-2007, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Just happy to be here guys.

States rights and state sovereignty don't carry any weight here. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause subordinates states’ rights to the national treaty power. When a nation enters into a treaty, it undertakes an international obligation that binds all of its organs (executive, legislative and judicial) and all its constituent jurisdictions (state and federal). A state is responsible for carrying out the obligations of an international agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with your overall analysis, this country is almost unique in terms of political structure in the world. This battle of Federal control vs States rights will continue to be pushed as more and more World agreements are reached.

Some feel that history has long decided this issue and in this day and age most State's rights are dead. They could be right given most legislative action since the 60's. But there is brewing IMO a growing feeling the the Federal Gov't has over reached in an attempt to totally homonigize the country.

Gambling has in this country, as well as a number of issues like law and insurance, been controled soley at the State level, all to some degree all bubble up in this dispute.

IMO this is in part the reason behind the arguement that the US never intended for the GATT and subsequent argreements to over ride individual State laws and rights.

Republicans tend more than Democrats to cling to this historical distinction. Given the current state of the republican party, it could well loose this long standing fight right here. It has happened in the past when the Dems controled all branches of the government, from FDR to LBJ.

Because of the state of weakness in the party and the little thought most Amercians actually give to the implications it is quite likely a battle that is over because it can't be fought politically.

D$D

Dismas

11-09-2007, 01:28 PM

Skallagrim

11-09-2007, 01:40 PM

Utah's state's rights will continue to allow Utah to ban any gambling that takes place solely within the state of Utah.

Gambling on the internet does not (usually) SOLELY take place within the state of Utah. Doing any kind of business on the internet that involves at least one entity outside Utah is INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Interstate commerce is something the Constitution explicitly says the Federal Government must regulate.

Thus there is really no states' rights issue with respect to the WTO decision: the Feds either allow internet gambling, or they dont, and Utah is stuck with the result unless it want to leave the US.

(There could be some creative way to allow Utah and other states to do some things individually, but that is not under discussion anywhere right now)

Skallagrim

TheEngineer

11-09-2007, 01:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just happy to be here guys.

States rights and state sovereignty don't carry any weight here. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause subordinates states’ rights to the national treaty power. When a nation enters into a treaty, it undertakes an international obligation that binds all of its organs (executive, legislative and judicial) and all its constituent jurisdictions (state and federal). A state is responsible for carrying out the obligations of an international agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who takes issue with a foreign entity dictating what laws we can or cannot make? While I may not agree with a state like Utah passing a law against gambling, I do defend there right to do so and I find any treaty or agreement made that hinders there right unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe in states' rights, and I do take issue with the willingness of our government to give away our rights via treaties like GATT. However, it's not like the WTO took these rights from our states. Rather, we gave them to the WTO.

I think the U.S. should honor its word. Again, it's not a foreign entity dictate; rather, it's an agreement the U.S. entered into voluntarily. The U.S. gives away many rights in treaties, especially ones on trade. The Senate is the body that represents states...that's why this is the body that ratifies treaties, I guess.