how long before PS UB and FT drop?

[Piece of Cake]

Again, I'm not proposing what exactly this new work-around will be. Simply that the recent legislation has created a new need, and the one who finds a solution stands to profit mightily.

I draw the analogy to torrent, because how that system works was not even in the realm of possibilities for me at the time of napster.

If I knew how or what the new method will be I'd probably stand to gain a lot from it - ofc I don't have any clue. Much like I had no clue about torrent. I'm simply proposing that need and profitability drive ingenuity, and both of these ingredients are present.

This innovation may even make regulation tougher at a later date.

I in no way propose to know more about the legal issues, the technology involved, or the ability of policing off shore cashflows. I'm just suggesting that there MAY be possibilities/solutions that are outside of box in terms of our current thinking and that a new need and lot money has lit a fire underneath a lot of people to find what it might be. Just maybe, because what we have here are the ingredients that lead to innovation.

[mwgr5]

Where there's money to be made, a service will be provided. It's just a matter of how difficult and safe access to that service will be in the future. I also don't really see the point in guessing when sites will or won't leave the US market. If you are afraid that your money won't be safe withdraw some of it or spread it around in different sites.

[Russ Fox]

I think everyone needs to take a "reality pill" and realize that if the US government decides (for whatever reason) to put an end to online gambling, they likely can. Some in this thread have argued that because the online sites are licensed in [Costa Rica, Isle of Man, Canadian Indian Reservation, etc.] that they are immune from US law.

I think anyone holding that belief should read Chuck Humphrey's essay, Where are you? Here! which discusses jurisdiction issues. After reading that article, I'm convinced that any US court (federal or state) could assert jurisdiction against any online site serving customers within the court's jurisdiction. [Note: I'm not an attorney, but Mr. Humphrey's arguments were persuasive to me.]

I think that Bill and Oliver are likely correct about what this means. While I think that the very long-term future of online gambling is good, I would not be surprised to see an effective prohibition in the near term. The U.S. has been getting $0 in tax revenues from the online sites. The sites aren't licensed in the US. These two factors likely make the outcome clear.

-- Russ Fox
co-author, "Why You Lose at Poker"

[olivert]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone needs to take a "reality pill" and realize that if the US government decides (for whatever reason) to put an end to online gambling, they likely can. Some in this thread have argued that because the online sites are licensed in [Costa Rica, Isle of Man, Canadian Indian Reservation, etc.] that they are immune from US law.

I think anyone holding that belief should read Chuck Humphrey's essay, Where are you? Here! which discusses jurisdiction issues. After reading that article, I'm convinced that any US court (federal or state) could assert jurisdiction against any online site serving customers within the court's jurisdiction. [Note: I'm not an attorney, but Mr. Humphrey's arguments were persuasive to me.]


[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, the court in Israel which ruled that VictorChandler.com was in violation of Israeli betting and advertising laws ruled that the Israeli government has jurisdiction because the CUSTOMERS of VictorChandler.com were physically in Israel even though VictorChandler.com was headquartered in Gibraltar.

Israel has cracked down HARD on offshore online gaming ever since the court handed down its decision on the VictorChandler.com case.

(Ditto the situation in France, where the two Bwin.com executives were arrested after they got off a plane in Nice on their way to Monaco. Bwin.com is headquartered in Austria and holds a gaming license issued in Gibraltar.)

I am still waiting for Washington State to put its law to the test by doing either of the following:

1. Arresting anyone who gets of a plane in Seattle while he or she is wearing the logo of a DOT-COM online poker room. A Washington State Gaming Commission official had said that he considers that person to be "aiding and abetting" an entity that engages in the "transmission of gambling-related information" by wearing a DOT-COM online poker room logo.

2. Arresting anyone who owns or is employed by a website that take DOT-COM online gambling (including online poker) advertising the moment he or she gets off a plane in Seattle. That would mean anyone associated with the likes of CardPlayer Magazine or TwoPlusTwo.com would be targets. Again, the same Washington State Gaming Commission official considers those media outlets to be "aiding and abetting" entities that engage in the "transmission of gambling-related information".

[Piece of Cake]

Question: Is Part 1 an issue of freedom of speech? Are there precedents for this sort of law?

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]

Bill,

You are mischaracterizing my position (intentionally so for some reason?), as I have never been "unendingly optimisitic. You are trying to equate glass half-full with glass full and that's dishonest.

Anyone would be prudent indeed to guard their money and keep as little on any one site or payment processor as possible to play a given stakes. And as I said earlier in this thread, to have a backup job plan if they both play fulltime and also have no savings.

I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to act on a prediction of the worst case scenario, so long as they don't use that prediction along with a false claim of short term urgency, to ignore the problems with the PPA. Unlike others here I'm not worried about "scaring the fish". I'm just saying it's far from certain the worst case scenario will transpire, and since we will know in months and not years if it will come about, then a lot of speculation is pointless, though again prudence is warranted in guarding one's roll and keeping one's options open.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff,

Rini can't concede a point or make any sort of retreat from his position. He's argued as an absolutist from the beginning, and as we all know, absolutists have no resort but to push the absolute position, else they are made to be fools. Rini has loudly argued his position, at times resorting to personal attacks, for a long time now. For your position to have a shred of legitimacy means that his is wrong. And if he's wrong, because of the way he's argued and the lengths he's gone to "prove" his point, people aren't going to allow him to forget it.

You're in a debate that you can't win because the other side isn't debating. He's repeating his absolute position because he's written himself into a corner and has no other alternative.

[LinusKS]

Russ, you're right that a license from Gibraltar or wherever doesn't mean diddly.

The problems from the government's pov aren't legal ones, but practical ones.

There are three enforcement strategies.

One is to arrest owners/employees whent the travel to the US.

Another is to shut down funding mechanisms.

The third is to block IP's.

The problem with the first method is that few owners/employees are likely to make the mistake of coming here in the future.

The problem with the third method - as I understand it - is that trying to block IPs is technologically difficult and economically prohibitive. Also politically unpopular.

The second method is the one they're trying now. To my understanding there will always be ways of getting money back and forth, however, even if it means sending paper checks.

I think there will continue to be sites that serve the US market. They'll be private concerns (not public companies) that don't have owners or employees who live in or have close ties to the US.

The market will be smaller, less efficient, and more expensive, but it will continue to exist.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]

Rini can't concede a point or make any sort of retreat from his position. He's argued as an absolutist from the beginning, and as we all know, absolutists have no resort but to push the absolute position, else they are made to be fools. Rini has loudly argued his position, at times resorting to personal attacks, for a long time now. For your position to have a shred of legitimacy means that his is wrong. And if he's wrong, because of the way he's argued and the lengths he's gone to "prove" his point, people aren't going to allow him to forget it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I agree with a lot he says but I object to the way that he omits other facts. The problem is that many people don't want to see past my objections. When you say that this or that is unlikely and I can show that it's likely people come out of the woodwork to portray me as being in favor of this stuff happening. Telling you that the forecast is for rain tomorrow isn't the same as hoping it rains tomorrow.

Those who wish to debate me strictly on my arguments are likely to find it to be a fairly interesting exchange. If you want to start your posts by bringing up whether or not my position sends traffic to my blog I see right through your attempts to make this look like a legitimate debate and take it for what it is.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]

Those who wish to debate me strictly on my arguments are likely to find it to be a fairly interesting exchange. If you want to start your posts by bringing up whether or not my position sends traffic to my blog I see right through your attempts to make this look like a legitimate debate and take it for what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes. I'm sure you are right. The over-the-top writings and arguments have NOTHING to do with making money off of your blog. You are correct. You do this for the good of mankind. You are a wonderful example for anyone involved in this debate. You are unsparingly honest. You are a pillar.

[Billman]

vinyard,

well it seems that the us government found a way into swift. and the guy supporting your point of view is the one who posted the proof so i'll refrain from repeating it here.

but let's just suppose that one of the us regulations that the us treasury puts forth at the end of the 270 days says this:

any bank subject to us regulation must make a reasonable effort not to transfer funds to any institution known to be engaged in accepting illegal wagers as defined under the uigea. this would include any funds transfer over any international or domestic payment network.

see because the way swift works is like this:

customer -> us bank -> intl bank -> merchant

in order for funds to be sent from the customer to the merchant the us bank must have the account number at the intl bank of the merchant. once a merchant becomes "known" as a gambling entity they can blacklist it. and as we saw with the link bluff posted when push comes to shove banks will comply with us law even if it puts them in violation of eu law if the banks have a presence in the us that puts them in us crosshairs.