- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m sure he’ll be busy figuring out how to funnel more tax payers money to Halliburton and Lockheed Martin.
I dont understand how anyone can vote for Republican. They are religious yet have no problem with killing innocent children and to generate war in order to earn more money for a couple of corporations.
Seriously people.
A few amusing sites to check out while we wait for it to become law
xhttp://www.bushorchimp.com
xhttp://www.bushislord.com
xhttp://www.bushisantichrist.comvery entertaining….
I, for one, don’t look good in stripes. I will be coming up with contingency sites, which effectively remove all my affiliate links, and any reference to “illegal” entities such as NETeller, as proclaimed by this new legislation.
I don’t think that referencing Poker and Casino sites by name (w/o any sort of affiliate or HREF links) breaks this law (please correct me, if anyone thinks that I am wrong here). If I am told to the contrary, I will remove these references as well.
The reason I’m doing this is to keep my sites active, for the purposes of Search Engine ranking, and by chance, should a miracle occur, I will “re-enable” the relevant pages of my sites.
The thought of prosecution worries me at the moment. My wife is not into that conjugal visit thing, and at this juncture, I’d rather be unemployed with the pressure of building other businesses to support my family, than to worry about the DOJ making a test case out of me. Yes, it’s all hard to swallow at the moment, but anger is the wrong emotion to be displaying at this time. I need to channel my energies into new markets, using the skills that I’ve acquired to the industry that has treated me well for a while.
I’ll wait to Bush-league adds his John Hancock to the bill, before I do the above. And, of course, I’ll await the legal advice that Professor and others will share with us here.
I must say that this is a great community here at CAP. If it is forced to shut down, I just want to say that this forum is the best ! Yes, it is true, CAP rocks big time !
Nice – thanks.
Professor you the best my best friend.
Professor,
I really appreciate you doing this for us.Any idea of when Mr. Walters might deliver this legal review?
I look forward to viewing your findings Professor.
Thank you Professor, this is really great!
Too much confusion lately.For what it’s worth, on GPWA, Michael Corfman (President of Casino City)
states the following:“No, an affiliate could not be considered aiding and abetting illegal gambling in the US if the affiliate promotes gaming at sites that do not accept players domociled in the US. In the case of Casino City, we only accept payment on a CPA basis, which further diminishes the risk that we could be found to be aiding and abetting. Such a charge requires that you be actively engaged in the business in a way that our attorneys advise us is not the case for Casino City. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice moved to have our case dismissed with one of the significant reasons cited being that we did not meet the criteria for being charged with aiding and abetting.”
I queried him as to why he thinks CPA earnings diminish risk, and will post here, if/when I get his reply.
Guys Larry Walters is on Vacation this week :hithead:
I contacted several other attornies, one specializes in online gaming and he requires a retainer of $8500 before he takes on a new client. The other attorney is more attuned to business law and his response was “I can’t advise you to break the law, but it basically boils down to this “some will get caught and face prosecution and some wont, do you feel lucky?” I didn’t find this very helpful.
I am going to wait until Larry gets back on Monday. I dont see a better alternative at the moment.
Quote:No, an affiliate could not be considered aiding and abetting illegal gambling in the US if the affiliate promotes gaming at sites that do not accept players domociled in the USThis statement seems reasonable, but without verification from Larry I cant recommend this course of action just yet.
Personally I would think US affiliates would be in compliance with the law if they ONLY market to players in countries where online gambling is legal, but I am not an attorney. Thats a small market, true, but its better then nothing I guess.
Yes, Professor, I agree, but I’m not an attorney either. To me, on the surface, it doesn’t seem plausible that the government would look the other way if we put a disclaimer on our sites stating that only non-US players need apply.
Corfman has always been an aggressive rebel, and you can bet, that he will fight this to the end. I also saw an interesting note on GPWA from him that stated as long as the affiliate links were in a wrapper (say, javascript) that were physically hosted on an overseas server, then we would be OK, even if the rest of your site is hosted on US territory.
Again, I will disable my affiliate links after the bill becomes law, but keep my site up and running. Then, I’ll wait and see. One never knows, miracles do happen.
And on a positive note, at least you weren’t charges $ 8,500 for that attorney to give you his dire opinion….
Now, just to add a glimour of hope for the non US-customer issue, Party Partners, who are a public entity and pulled the plug on Monday for US customers, has the following on their website:
=========================================================
Will Affiliates from the US continue being able to be a part of PartyPartners ?The restrictions apply only to customers located in the US. There are no new restrictions that prevent Affiliates based in the US from promoting PartyGaming brands to non-US players.
=========================================================Now granted, this is coming from UK attorneys, who are not necessarily looking at things from the U.S. legal perspective………..but, the above statement supports Corfman’s assertion above.
My problem with this premise, is that there will be many overseas gambling outfits that will continue business as usual for US-based customers. Our government knows this, and to be promoting such entities, would certainly seem to be in violation of the new law. Again, I’m no attorney, but from a layman’s perspective, doesn’t this seem logical ?
Thanks Prof – looking forward to it.
