- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
ewhitaker wrote:Also – where is it being stated anywhere that affiliates promoting to US players will get in trouble? Seems to me, all I can find is that they are putting a ban on the banks, credit card companies and payment processors.
Can someone please point this out to me in the bill?
From what I heard there is verbage in the bill that outlaws advertisement for online casinos.
lagunacat wrote:INeteller will have your new address. http://www.petitiononline.com/LOGNOW/petition.htmlWhat new address? Neteller goes according to where your bank is located and for me, this is in the US. If the government prohibits businesses like Neteller from paying casino earnings to US citizens, I don’t see how Neteller would ever be able to tell if the payments they are transferring to me would be from US or overseas players. This is ridicoulos to try to regulate.
There is just too much uncertainty in all of this. I think alot of people are jumping the gun. This law so far appears to only be directed at the casinos, banks and payment processing companies.
I’m not doing anything until I get a better understanding of what exactly the law will be if and when it goes into effect.
You guys that are all bailing might regret what you are doing – I might regret waiting. Who the hell knows? All I know is that I put ALOT of time and energy into my site and I’ll be damned if its going to be all for nothing. If I need to bail, then I’ll find another way – there are always other options if we seek them out…
ewhitaker wrote:If the government prohibits businesses like Neteller from paying casino earnings to US citizens, I don’t see how Neteller would ever be able to tell if the payments they are transferring to me would be from US or overseas players. This is ridicoulos to try to regulate...
Your right, there are too many unknowns, especially with Neteller. Read this from the gambling scholar Mr. Rose, who is a hell of alot smarter than our law makers.
“
The great unknown is how far into the Internet commerce stream federal regulators are willing to go. The Act requires institutions like the Bank of America and Neteller to i.d. and block transactions to unlawful gambling sites, whatever they are. But, while the Bank of America will comply, Neteller might not, because it is not subject to U.S. regulations. Will federal regulators then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to Neteller? And would they then prohibit U.S. banks from sending funds to an overseas bank, which forwards the money to Neteller?For financial institutions within the U.S, the Act provides that exclusive regulatory enforcement rests with their federal regulators, like the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to enforce regulations on everyone else. It is extremely doubtful whether the F.T.C. will ever try to do anything about the Netellers of the world, who are beyond regular U.S. regulatory control.
§5365 Since there is no way to regulate overseas payment processors, the Act allows the U.S. and state attorneys general to bring civil actions in federal court. The courts have the power to issue temporary restraining orders, preliminary and permanent injunctions, to prevent restricted transactions. The only problem with this enormous power is that it is, again, practically useless against payment processors who are entirely overseas.
It is difficult to serve a company with the papers necessary to start a lawsuit, a summons and complaint or petition, if the company has no offices, or officers, in the U.S. Even if the papers for such a lawsuit can be served, there is normally no requirement that foreign countries enforce these types of orders. Other countries are particularly reluctant to enforce a T.R.O., which does not even require that the defendant be present. Preliminary injunctions are also often ignored, because they are issued without a full trial and can be modified at anytime by the trial judge. Neteller operates out of the Isle of Man. I do not know of any treaty or other law which would require the Isle of Man to enforce even a permanent injunction against one of its licensed operators.”
ewhitaker wrote:Also – where is it being stated anywhere that affiliates promoting to US players will get in trouble? Seems to me, all I can find is that they are putting a ban on the banks, credit card companies and payment processors.Can someone please point this out to me in the bill?
This should help you out. This is Rose’s (gambling scholar) interpretation..” But the statute has an interesting requirement: The site must “reside on a computer server that such service controls or operates.” This would limit the reach of this statute to payment processors, affiliates and search engines that are housed on that particular ISP. The same problem of going after foreign operators and payment processors affects this section. Foreign ISPs are difficult to serve and not necessarily subject to federal court injunctions.
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.”
Thanks Cat –
The problem is that is it just as mentioned. “All interpretations”. Sometimes I wonder if our law makers deliberatly make things so vague just to leave them open room to “intepretate” and “twist” things to their benefit.
This country is taking more and more control over the personal lives of their citizens – I’m not just mad about this casino thing – it’s everything. It’s not a free country anymore like it used to be. We used to care about our people and now, well – it’s just about the money (always has been, but with time it’s gotton worse). Money money money. Who cares about good education, health insurance and the overall welfare of our people? The government is interested in MONEY only even at the expense of their own people. Makes me want to grab these dillholes and make them live with the homeless for awhile. They need a wake up call. :cuss:
ewhitaker wrote:Thanks Cat –The problem is that is it just as mentioned. “All interpretations”. Sometimes I wonder if our law makers deliberatly make things so vague just to leave them open room to “intepretate” and “twist” things to their benefit.
Absolutely! This bill is extremely vague! Vague enough that it tries to impose this law on the whole world. The arrogance! But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. US government has long thought they are the world police.
betprize wrote:eUKhost.com, can’t beat their price.I just contacted this company and they told me that if I joined them my web sites would be on their US server. This could be a problem. Could be a problem for them as well. Although they are a UK company their US server would fall under this law, no? Anybody know more about this?
I agree that it would be a problem to have your site on their US server – makes it more plausible that these guys are just resellers as well if they dont have their server farm located in England – suggests that admins must be in the US & how much hiring for US admins could this small UK host control. I’d say they are a reseller & if such is the case I would not count on them to host your site(s).
Trey wrote:I agree that it would be a problem to have your site on their US server – makes it more plausible that these guys are just resellers as well if they dont have their server farm located in England – suggests that admins must be in the US & how much hiring for US admins could this small UK host control. I’d say they are a reseller & if such is the case I would not count on them to host your site(s).I just found out that they do have a UK server. I emailed them with my concerns about the recent legislation and this was their reply.
“Well, you can have all your sites moved to our UK based server for sure.”
So if anyone signs up with this company make sure you request their UK server. These people are fast with their responses!
Lagunat
What company is it.Yes, their customer service has been superb! In most cases you get response within 5 minutes!
In their statement they say: “eUKhost LTD is run from our base office located in County Durham, UK”. When you sign a hosting agreement it says that they only oblige the UK laws. Their servers are located in the UK, Germany and the US, yon can specify the desirable locations for your domains. Of course, their basic packages do not provide you with the same service as a dedicated server in an established and well reputable company, but the price here is tens times cheaper. In the current situation who can be sure of the future profits when even the oldtimers in CAP are selling their sites for cheap?… Can anyone be sure that you’ll be able to earn back thousands of $$ to justify expenses for an expensive server hosting? If my shared sever is not overloaded, if the uptime is good- that is all I need! So far I have been happy with a shared server. If the online gambling case is lost, at least I will not lose much.I’m not sure that just hosting your sites on UK servers is as straightforward as people think. We have the Gambling Commission rules coming into place soon and they do run restrictions on advertising content. ie. No bonus offers, etc.
Has anyone looked into this in any detail about how if would affect non-UK Webmasters hosting on UK servers.
I don’t know enough about it to make fair comment but perhaps someone has looked into it or even found a country with less rules (which I’m sure there is.)
