- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I respectfully disagree, John. I think this is the worst thing that could have happened to us. This law isn’t only about the banking end – there are specific pieces in this bill that clearly incriminate U.S.-based affiliates. Frist and his legal team were smart enough (I had to give this bastard credit) to strike the illegality of playing games online from the bill, since that would have been easy to challenge in courts, on multiple fronts (1st Amendment, e.g.).
I think the ramifications of this, are that the DOJ will now go on a witch-hunt, attempting to pick off affiliates. To what extent, who knows ? I think that they will make test cases, publicize it well, and try to scare us all, while the banking industry “prepares to comply with the law”. Whereas most state laws didn’t afford them this luxury, this federal law does – several of the more prominent US gaming law experts concur with this.
The ability of the banking end of things remains to be seen. I agree with you that this is a no-win situation for the banks – it will cost them bucks to implement, they lose customers, and they run the risk of erroneously killing transactions, that will ultimately piss-off customers. The banking industry cannot be too happy right now.
Unless some powerful lobbyist-types challenge this law in court, I think the landscape has changed immensely. I cannot believe that some highly profitable and well-capitalized companies would have pulled the plug on US-customers over the last several weeks, without thoroughly researching the legal vs. the business ramifications.
Although there are probably courses of action that we can take to protect ourselves, this is scary terrain at the moment.
we all need to be involved in supporting this first case, casino operators, software companies all should be obligated to defend the first hit on the DOJ to present a presidence.
dhayman wrote:I think this is the worst thing that could have happened to us.It is the worst thing that has happened to us. HR4411 will be the worst thing that could happen to us. This was just a wake-up call. :blush: Let’s hope it worked. I think we got lucky and it’s like being given a second chance.
Simmo! wrote:It is the worst thing that has happened to us. HR4411 will be the worst thing that could happen to us. This was just a wake-up call. :blush: Let’s hope it worked. I think we got lucky and it’s like being given a second chance.
Simmo, it really depends on where you are located. If I was in UK, I would probably feel as you do. This is going to much tougher on US-based affiliates.dhayman wrote:Unless some powerful lobbyist-types challenge this law in court, I think the landscape has changed immensely. I cannot believe that some highly profitable and well-capitalized companies would have pulled the plug on US-customers over the last several weeks, without thoroughly researching the legal vs. the business ramifications.They havent done much up until now why should we expect them to do anything now? They just jumped ship; others are attempting to appear responsible by refusing certain states; little do they know thats going to get them in even more trouble down the road. I guess its time to take down those sites. :hitthefan
axl wrote:I guess its time to take down those sites. :hitthefan
I definitely agree.Well I have basically said all that I can. This bill will have zero effect on casino webmasters. The only effect it may have is in the wallet. The government cannot censor sites that reside on the WORLD WIDE WEB. The government may request the ISP to remove the sight but has no legal backing otherwise. Therefore I respectfully disagree with dhayman.
I would like to see all us webmasters link together and get this unfolding story top spot.
greek39
greek39 wrote:Well I have basically said all that I can. This bill will have zero effect on casino webmasters. The only effect it may have is in the wallet. The government cannot censor sites that reside on the WORLD WIDE WEB. The government may request the ISP to remove the sight but has no legal backing otherwise. Therefore I respectfully disagree with dhayman.I would like to see all us webmasters link together and get this unfolding story top spot.
greek39
Greek,I respect your opinion, but this government administration THINKS AND DOES whatever it damn pleases (and please, don’t get me started on the war…..). Again, I believe that you are protected from prosecution since you are resident and hosted (I’m assuming here) outside the U.S. I understand your WWW argument, but all the rules of fair play have been turned off here. I believe it is a no-win position to be a US-based affiliate as of today.
John I think that was a very good summary and I agree in most part with what you say. Keep in mind if some of these big sites get suddenly moved offshore doesn’t mean the owners will still be protected. Eventually the owners will need to bring in the money and bet your butt there is already a big data base of who is who in some gov’t agency.
If they want to make a case they will keep following the money and once it is back in the US they will find the altimate beneficiary. The once with the most to loose are the US affiliates, measures to continue to process the money are already in place.
Several sportsbooks who were part of public companies traded on the London Stock Exchange, AIM, have been sold back to the private sector for the bargain price of $1.
Good luck all,
Brian
This is the Internet designed for the free flow of information World Wide. The internet provides access to the world wide web. Notice everything I have said involves world?
The U.S Government does not has no authority over the Internet, this is a fact. Again what law is their to prosecute a U.S gambling affiliate.
Besides this new bill passed today was really directed at who? The internet? no it was directed at land based financial institutions.
I quess the U.S could always bomb a couple of internet Hubs, perhaps the mayfair.
greek3
greek39 wrote:The U.S Government does not has no authority over the Internet, this is a fact. Again what law is their to prosecute a U.S gambling affiliate.You are right on that part. But what you are missing is that the US Government DOES have authority over what it’s citizens are allowed to do. The internet really has nothing to do with this. It is just a medium.
IMHO, the problem is when USA webmasters receive money from online casinos. Make an analogy between shareholders and webmasters.
And when the Dems take over, might they not rewrite the laws? Granted, that’s a few years down the road…
dhayman wrote:Simmo, it really depends on where you are located. If I was in UK, I would probably feel as you do. This is going to much tougher on US-based affiliates.Yes I feel for you guys dh. It’s always harder of the front line. I do think though that with this watered-down legislation going through, that doesn’t explicitly ban online gambling, it could work out a lucky break in a weird way. It’s not good I agree. But it does mean we all have a chance to ponder the ramifications of HR4411 before it happens (if it happens) and the industry will probably take it that much more seriously now. Hopefully that will mean people are a bit more ready next time.
What is most interesting to note is that most of the problems this has caused has come from within the sector itself. The reactions. I’m not disputing whether what we’ve seen is right, wrong or rushed, but nonetheless it’s the reactions that have shaped what we are seeing today.
If you look at this at the simplest level, it means that a small proprtion of casinos have ruled out the USA and a lot of others have banned 11 US states. It could have been worse than that, and it may get worse than that, but at least there is a period to plan.
It’s a bit like building a wall to keep your enemies out, then finding a handful of them fight their way over. You may have lost a few men, but it’s not enough to defeat your army and it does indicate your wall isn’t as good as you thought it was.
Reading this thread a second time I realized that there is actually nobody who wtronly disagrees with anyone else. It a matter of one’s own convictions and personal situation that will ulitimately determine how you react.
dhayman, I think we would flatter ourselves to think that the DOJ is going to “pick off affiliates”. They have way biggesr fish to fry. If they are after you, I am not worried about you as you probably have the financial resources to comfortably relocate into a mansion surrounded by beautiful blue water.
I have to agree with Simmo, but it is probably becuase I have the luxury of being outside the US. It could have been waaayyyy worse.
Having said that, I don’t think we have even seen the start of it…
Good luck to all
