If it Wasn't Illegal to Run a Site Before Why Did They All Use .Net

[danielkomen]

I and many thought it was illegal before this legislation to run a poker site taking bets from US customers. I thougth the poker sites believed this as well. They advertised their .net sites in the US not their .com sites and they were all set up off shore.

Thus, what does the bill change for the sites themselves? I don't see why Party needs to shut out US customers. What it did before was illegal in terms of US law. What Party does now is still illegal as well. Am I missing something here?

It seems like the only real change is that US banks can no longer fund poker sites (but most banks didn't do this beforehand anyway).

From the perspective of the US player it was ok to play poker before this legislation and is still legal after it. It is just harder to fund the sites. However, apparently some of the sites are now going to shut out US customers. Can someone explain to me why? If before this legislation it was legal to take US customers then why didn't all the sites advertise their .com names instead of their .Net names? Why did they all set up offshore?

Thanks for explaining this. I tried to post this before but it wasn't done clearly.

The sites in my mind should keep doing what they were doing.

[hedxcold]

nevermind i should read the post closer next time [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[blueodum]

They are doing it for a variety of reasons.

Before this, there was no federal law that expressly prohibited online poker, as the Wire Act only referenced sportsbetting via telephone.

Now there is.

The advertising issue is separate. Mostly, the .net thing happened because the various advertising media wanted to play it safe.

[xorpheous]

blue has the right of it. The move to .net sites was taken as a "cover-your-bum" tactic. The status of online poker is ambiguous on the Federal level, but unfortunately expressly illegal in some states. (Washington for example) So media companies didn't want to get even close to dangerous legal ground.

[PurpleLight]

I always thought they both launched playmoney .net sites as a form of public relations too. Notice the PS .net adverts are always very wholesome and advertise that the site is there to sharpen your game and emphasis is on THIS IS NOT A GAMBLING WEBSITE.

I always attributed that to negative PR from the media about poker being a tumorous gambling phenomenon in society.

Could be off on my read though.

[GoodOL]

[ QUOTE ]
I and many thought it was illegal before this legislation to run a poker site taking bets from US customers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think anything regarding online gambling was clear before this law. This law clarifies some things (the transfer of money), but I still don't know if actually PLAYING poker online is illegal.

[Malsuerte]

[ QUOTE ]
They are doing it for a variety of reasons.

Before this, there was no federal law that expressly prohibited online poker, as the Wire Act only referenced sportsbetting via telephone.

Now there is.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is STILL no law expressly prohibiting online poker. Read the bill, it does not mention online poker at all nor does it necessarily change the legality of ANY form of gambling. People posting in this form really need to read the legislation. If this is important to you, the first step you need to take is not guessing about what the legislation says, but to read it yourself. As how the new law will be interpreted and what in real world terms this will actually mean to us, only time will tell.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I and many thought it was illegal before this legislation to run a poker site taking bets from US customers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think anything regarding online gambling was clear before this law. This law clarifies some things (the transfer of money), but I still don't know if actually PLAYING poker online is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]



The sites say they are legal in their countries. They make you responsible to learn and abide by the laws where you live.

Online poker, along with most gambling, is very likely unlawful according to the laws of the State in which you live. Gambling is right in there with prostitution, obscenity, controlled substances, animal abuse etc.

[Assani Fisher]

Not sure if I understand the exact question, but just because something is legal doesn't mean its legal to advertise(cigarettes on tv for example).