- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The statements of 888Holdings and PartyGaming early today were completely unnecessary, on the wrong time, and weakened all the gambling sector.
In contrast, Neteller made the right statement.
Agreed. Of course, the problem for the some of the online casino/poker companies (like PartyGaming and 888) is this:
They’ve focused so much of their energy on the US market and neglected the rest of the world for so long that the foundation of their business can be pulled away by aggressive anti-online gambling moves within the United States.Put it this way – you don’t see Gambling Federation and Grand Virtual panicking right now, do you?
Put it this way – you don’t see Gambling Federation and Grand Virtual panicking right now, do you?
Yes, because they are probably more than willing to accept the legal status of drug dealers hiding out on some archipelago in the Carribean if they have to.
Hi all,
… is there any way other than to accept the new terms to continue to do business thru NETeller? I don’t see how.
I haven’t accepted them yet … came here first to see what everyone thought.
Goldfinger wrote :
Yes, because they are probably more than willing to accept the legal status of drug dealers hiding out on some archipelago in the Carribean if they have to.
I have no idea what you’re referring to, but it’s sounds both interesting and libellous to me
My point was that Gambling Federation and Grand Virtual have grown their businesses by catering for the non-English speaking gambler and thus the potential loss of the biggest English speaking market would be less of a blow.
Goldfinger wrote:Yes, because they are probably more than willing to accept the legal status of drug dealers hiding out on some archipelago in the Carribean if they have to.
I would be surprised if this business was immune to hypocrits.
We here in Europe try to say that US law should’t been applied to the rest of the world.
If I’m right the legal age for buying alcohol is 21 in USA. In Europe it’s 18.
So when a 18 year old tourist from the States come to Europe and buy a bottle of bear at a supermarket; should the supermarket be liable to prosecution by the US DOJ? That’s f*king ridicolous bull.Led, according to your example it would be ok if I set up shop in the US and tried to sell alcohol to under 21 year olds.
All I was saying is that the public companies may have overreacted but they have to be careful because their directors and officers are held liable. At the other end of the program I see less respectable aff programs that wouldn´t stop at breaking the law just to make a quick buck. And no I am not saying that the mentioned publicly quoted programs were great in the way they dealt with affiliates in the past.
less respectable aff programs that wouldn´t stop at breaking the law just to make a quick buck.
I’m not certain where you are going with this argument, Goldfinger.
You are talking about ‘breaking the law’ but the real question is ‘breaking whose law’.
Let’s be very clear here – different countries have different laws. What the United States seem to be try to do is to prosecute foreign nationals and companies who have broken no laws in the countries in which they operate.
This, if allowed to continue, sets an extremely disturbing precedent.
tryme1 wrote:You are talking about ‘breaking the law’ but the real question is ‘breaking whose law’.Let’s be very clear here – different countries have different laws. What the United States seem to be try to do is to prosecute foreign nationals and companies who have broken no laws in the countries in which they operate.
This, if allowed to continue, sets an extremely disturbing precedent.
Exactly. Don’t really understand a prosecution of foreign nationals for breaking US laws when they are having business outside.
And that’s why I think statements from PartyGaming and 888 unnecessary.
Again, I don’t see anything in UK law that says that they can’t accept US bets, and if it they operate under UK law, I’m not seing very well where US law fits.
I know the example that I gave isn’t realy fair as internet has no boundaries.
But I think that it’s makes some difference that if a visitor goes to a foreign website on his/her on will. I think that is same as going overseas by person and doing things that are legal in that particular contry but illegal in US.
Do you know that US citizens have many restricted places to visit overseas?
That’s not better than Castro’s regime.tryme1 wrote:I’m not certain where you are going with this argument, Goldfinger.You are talking about ‘breaking the law’ but the real question is ‘breaking whose law’.
Let’s be very clear here – different countries have different laws. What the United States seem to be try to do is to prosecute foreign nationals and companies who have broken no laws in the countries in which they operate.
This, if allowed to continue, sets an extremely disturbing precedent.
Muslims are right!
