Slashdot Mirror
The Looming Battle Over Online Gambling
Kadin2048 writes "According to an recent Ars Technica article, the US is headed on a 'collision course' with the WTO over off-shore Internet gambling, if a bill currently in the House of Representatives passes. The 'Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,' (PDF) which updates the 'Wire Act' to prohibit Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it, is in direct contravention of a WTO ruling. Proponents of the bill claim that it was narrowly defeated in previous incarnations due to the influence of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. However it seems as though some of Abramoff's biggest clients -- brick and mortar casinos -- are really the big winners from passage of this bill, since it does not prohibit gambling in person, only online."
Call me cynical.... But I think that the Bricks and mortar casinos give enough money to politicos that there is not a snowballs chance in hell that online gambling will be legal.
Also, Online, offshore gambling is tough to tax. If the government can't tax it, they will outlaw it...
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
Consolidate the whole world into the Extended USA. Then legalize everything: gambling, drugs, prostitutes, ripping CD's into MP3's (just kidding, that should always be illegal). Then tax the hell out of the whole thing, and reduce us all to serfs working and toiling for "the man", which is now a single ruling body over everything.
Everybody will work towards Friday under oppression, then celebrate the weekend by gambling, doing drugs and girls, and then listening to illgotten music (just kidding about that one). Problems solved.
Ahh, gambling. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
-THE END-
That was telling google et al to locate their servers offshore to avoid China asking for information from them or asking them to filter content in their search engines......which is it????
I hate this Congress.....they claim that it would be ok for us to do to another country, but not to our own. I guess their mothers never taught them the golden rule. "Treat others as you want to be treated"
Screw them.
Error: Sig not found.
I agree....if they could/would bring their casinos online, especially the major ones in Vegas and Atlantic City...they could really pull in US gamblers I'd think.
Since they are overseen quite well by their city's gaming boards, people could feel more comfortable that they were 'honest' games online.
I'd certainly feel more comfortable playing online Texas Hold'em with say, Harrah's online, than some place offshore....if I were so inclined to do something like that.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Great, 30 million on this shit. Here's a far better idea- legalize online gambling. Tax it. Regulate it so that we can be sure the RNG is fair. Force casinos to put a small percent of profits twoards rehabilitation for those who truely have problems, and let those of us who can control their gambling have fun playing a game of poker now and then.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The WTO does not claim to impose or dismiss national controls over its populace--it only seeks to maintain a level playing field between countries--that you cannot place burdens on foreign competitors in order to protect the companies in your own country from foreign competition.
The bill banning US citizens from using *all* net gambling sites does not violate WTO rules, as it treats all countries' sites equally.
If you remove the safety net, some people will indeed learn and take care of themselves. However a LOT of people will not take care of themselves and hurt themselves, their family and perhaps you (through crime/desease/poverty you name it). That is the nature of people.
;-)
Now if you still think that this suits you fine, then "Welcome to America"
Personally I am inclined to say that certain safety nets that protect people against themselves or each other builds a healthy society.
On April 15, it's YOUR problem.
rj
They can't repeal the laws here.
If they did, then they'd have to actually address the issue of which state the transaction on the Internet takes place in: the buyers state, or the sellers state.
They don't want to do that, because in doing so, they either have declare the transaction takes place in the buyers state - and limit online gaming to people in physical locations where it's legal to gamble - or the sellers state - and render illegal all those state laws regarding "use tax".
They can't limit it to the buyers state, because if they do that, there's no way to tax it or prove what state the buyer is actually in at the time of the transaction, because there's no geotracking information associated with Internet connectivity.
They can't limit it to the sellers state, because if they do that, there's no way that an online seller is going to be able to collect the tax on behalf of 50 states, Midway, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, and they effectively squelch a large part of the economy.
Sowhat the Wire Act enables them to do is to stick their collective heads in the sand and pretend that there's nothing to see here, and that people who buy things on the Internet are paying their local used tax, and that sellers in the same state as the shipping address are collecting and forwarding the state sales tax to the state they are located in.
This basically lets them ignore the whole problem that derives from having non-uniform state tax laws for a little while longer.
From the point of view of someone who occaasionally makes purchaes over the Internet, I have to say that I actually approve of this tack; I'd hate to have to provide strong identification couple with strong locality information, just to access the Internet, "just in case" I decided to try to buy something online.
-- Terry
This makes me wonder what the legality will be (or is) of gambling in MMORPGs and other virtual realities, particularly those like Second Life where in-game items and currency can be bought and sold with real-world money. If you make in-game gambling illegal, that seems like an unreasonable (and perhaps unconstitutional?) constraint placed on creators of games. On the other hand, if in-game gambling is legal, that's a pretty big loophole for the "evils of gambling" to get through.
On that note, couldn't all for-pay MMORPGs be considered a form of gambling? Players pay a certain amount each month, and there's a certain chance that you'll be able to accumulate in-game items which can be sold for real-world money. There's of course an entertainment aspect to the game, but there's also an entertainment aspect for going to a casino.