- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
owldeath2 wrote:Surely a lot of you here can retire now anyway?
Lol, retire. I’ll be comfortable for a while but i’m only 23 so a long way to go yet.
owldeath2 wrote:Surely a lot of you here can retire now anyway?Yeah sure, and those that can’t will become consultants for the landbased
American casinos for their online service expansion to their customers.
:popcorn:
Hey Aleph, that’s a good niche :p I wonder if they would like to know what we have done in the last years…
But if security firms contracts hackers :banger: , I could do some consultation for landbased too :p
Recent Info:
http://www.gambling911.com/internet-gambling-093006.html
Apperently, not everyone happy about this. Our friend from Nevada Rep Berekley is back at it. “Once signed some time this week, the law would not go into effect for nearly another year. There is the potential for litigation and delay in regard to the online gambling provision.” So apperently, there will be some form of Litigation out of the courts to be had.
“Once signed some time this week, the law would not go into effect for nearly another year. There is the potential for litigation and delay in regard to the online gambling provision.”
We probably have some time here. Also, it seems this bill addressed nothing in regards to the Wire Act. I think we are still in a very grey area regardless.
cowboy wrote:GOP Aims to Crack Down on Web Gambling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000166.htmlarticle wrote:Kyl and Frist previously tried unsuccessfully to put the measure on a bill authorizing funding for the military, but critics said the Defense Department bill was no place for the gambling measure.Yep. This sure didn’t belong on a defense department bill. Port security… definitely!
From http://saveonlinegaming.com/index.php
“CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE: The United States Congress has passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. After review (Click Here To Download) this bill is largerly ceremonial and DOES NOT amend the Wire Act. The UIGEA deal only with payment methods inside the U.S. including banks wires, checks, and other US internet payment companies. Thankfully it appears to be business as usual for the most of the industry, but please understand the Wire Act Amendment is an issue that can easily be raised again. This fight is not over until that threat is gone.”
I found this to be the most accurate standpoint.
ARGH! And I was diversifying from the pharmacy business??? Figures – I JUST finished putting up my disasterous banner farm last night… I think I need to go order some valium from myself.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171034.stm
The bill would make it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits betting.
That limits it a lot.
Will Lawrence Walters perhaps have an interpretation on this anytime soon?
Dominique wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171034.stmThat limits it a lot.
That’s a July 11th article. Was the author Nostradamus? :shots:
I am no lawyer but the way i read this their will be no law against depositing our money in an offshore bank and going from their. And if i read it corectly (wich i problebly didnt) other than having to shift our money more it wont be such a huge deal.Though im not to good at reading and decifling leagle mumbo jumbo
the providing a html link to a gamling site can be seen as illegal is my issue
I wasnt thinking when i posted the above.I meant to say that as far as players are concerned. Affiliates on the other hand definately have a problem to work out.
What problem is that?
