- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hey Dominique,
Not trying to stomp you out of this thread, but the author of this article is the wife of the owner of Cardplay.com. I do believe she is an attorney though.
The most positive news I read so far.
Thanks.
:la-de-da:
dhayman wrote:Hey Dominique,Not trying to stomp you out of this thread, but the author of this article is the wife of the owner of Cardplay.com. I do believe she is an attorney though.
hehe, nothing to stomp here, is just a discussion thread.
The other one was to give a player group much needed help and exposure.
Stomp away!!
Even though there is a bias towards her reasoning (she is the wife of Cardchat.com owner), her analysis is extremely in depth and is plausible.
What everyone is forgetting is that although the crux of the bill deals with the banking end of things, the bill ALSO explicitly refers to sites that aid and abet, as being criminal, and this is what we do for a living.
Hence, after the bill is signed, although playing poker online may still be legal, our ability to advertise Poker sites that are hosted in the U.S. will clearly not be. So, even though there will be lots to interpret by the legal eagles, us US folks are out of luck from the get go. If you are overseas, a different story entirely.
The legalities of online gambling is still as muddy as they were before this new bill.
““This bill did not make anything legal or illegal,” says Fahrenkopf. “What it did was affect the mechanism by which Internet gambling takes place…and there is some question as to whether or not that will be effective.””
There is also a truckload of jurisdictional issues.
I sincerely don’t feel this new bill has any teeth in it at all.
Yeah, publicly trading companies panic, but they have shareholders to appease. Their business decisions are no longer entirely geared towards the realities of this industry.
dhayman wrote:What everyone is forgetting is that although the crux of the bill deals with the banking end of things, the bill ALSO explicitly refers to sites that aid and abet, as being criminal, and this is what we do for a living.Huh? I haven’t seen any such thing explicitly in this bill. Can you refer me to a page and line number?
dhayman wrote:Hence, after the bill is signed, although playing poker online may still be legal, our ability to advertise Poker sites that are hosted in the U.S. will clearly not be. So, even though there will be lots to interpret by the legal eagles, us US folks are out of luck from the get go. If you are overseas, a different story entirely.
This was my take on things also.Can I add my information onto this please…..
We’re Uk-based so this is a slightly different slant, but all the same….
I have spoken to one the most senior online gaming legal eagles in the industry (no names but this person is a regular at ALL the conferences – you’d recognise the name) today, trying to clarify some of what UIGEA means.
The response I got was basically sit tight and dont panic. At no point was I told that advertising online gambling would be or will become an offence. The whole thing is aimed at the banking system and according to this person the US banks have already told the US government that there isn’t a hope in hell of them having systems in place in the ACH within 270 days to make this anywhere near workable.
The legal landscape has not changed….yet. What happens after 270 days is a different matter but for now wait and see.
Fergie wrote:The legalities of online gambling is still as muddy as they were before this new bill.““This bill did not make anything legal or illegal,” says Fahrenkopf. “What it did was affect the mechanism by which Internet gambling takes place…and there is some question as to whether or not that will be effective.””
There is also a truckload of jurisdictional issues.
I sincerely don’t feel this new bill has any teeth in it at all.
Yeah, publicly trading companies panic, but they have shareholders to appease. Their business decisions are no longer entirely geared towards the realities of this industry.
Couldn’t agree more Fergie.
greek39
WhichBingo wrote:The response I got was basically sit tight and dont panic. At no point was I told that advertising online gambling would be or will become an offence. The whole thing is aimed at the banking system and according to this person the US banks have already told the US government that there isn’t a hope in hell of them having systems in place in the ACH within 270 days to make this anywhere near workable.The legal landscape has not changed….yet. What happens after 270 days is a different matter but for now wait and see.
Far be it for a “Good Ole Boy” down south to argue BUT isn’t there a hyper link section in the bill itself?
I just don’t think you would see so many successful and knowledgable people selling their sites left and right if there was any means for us to continue on.
This is the section which clears ISP’s but states links are not legal or allowed in the US. At least that’s my take.
`(c) Limitation Relating to Interactive Computer Services-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Relief granted under this section against an interactive computer service shall–
`(A) be limited to the removal of, or disabling of access to, an online site violating section 5363, or a hypertext link to an online site violating such section, that resides on a computer server that such service controls or operates, except that the limitation in this subparagraph shall not apply if the service is subject to liability under this section under section 5367;
`(
be available only after notice to the interactive computer service and an opportunity for the service to appear are provided;`(C) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer service to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts indicating activity violating this subchapter;
`(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it applies; and
`(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.
Do a query here to find the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c109query.htmlBlackjackInfo wrote:Huh? I haven’t seen any such thing explicitly in this bill. Can you refer me to a page and line number?
Yeah, that’s the part:P.239 of the bill clearly points this out, and it was interpreted that way exactly by Prof. Rose, the famous gambling legal mind.
You couldn’t pay for a better opinion than Prof. Rose either…
Here is the column:
http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/columns/2006_act.htmThis is his opinion on the matter as has been quoted on this forum in a different thread already:
The greatest danger here would seem to be with affiliates. Any American operator can be easily grabbed. This includes sites that don’t directly take bets, but do refer visitors to gaming sites. If the affiliate is paid for those referrals by receiving a share of the money wagered or lost, it would not be difficult to charge the affiliate with violating this law, under the theory of aiding and abetting. Being a knowing accomplice and sharing in the proceeds of a crime make the aider and abettor guilty of the crime itself. The federal government could also charge the affiliate with conspiracy to violate this new Act.
Nonsense
greek39
Nonsense is people giving bad advice.
