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."
I wouldn't bet on this ending nicely at all.
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.
I think this act violating some funny acronym takes a backseat to the idea of every nation's own soverignity.
This is sponsored by US casinos that are losing business to online ones. Instead of pushing through bs legislation, they should have to compete by making their own casinos online. Yet another example of "bought" legislation that serves only the good of corporations.
http://religiousfreaks.com/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.
Or at least, a bill has been tabled.
e nt/session2/b060_e.htm
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliam
If you could be anything you want, I'll bet you'd be disappointed.
prohibit Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it
Obviously this only applies to corporations and businesses incorporated in the US. Solution? Online gambling companies will simply incorporate on whatever island their servers are hosted, and shut down their US branches.
You don't have to be a US company to take US money.
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
And, even though I'm disgusted by the money they want to spend on this, I'm more disgusted that the "personal responsibility" party (repubs) and "keep your government out of my bedroom" party (dems) both think that gambling is something they have the right to regulate. Do some (dumb) people become addicted to gambling and spend their life savings? Yes, and they deserve to lose that money. Just because there are a few people unable to think logically about their actions doesn't mean we should prevent the tens of millions of people who enjoy the thrill of a weekend in Vegas or Party Poker from doing so responsibly.
Personally, I think gambling is a waste of time - but that should always be the choice of the person doing the gambling. Sure, it can ruin lives and mess up families - but dammit, that's THEIR problem! I should be free to spend $2.00 online gambling every now and then if I were into that sort of thing. The more the government attempts to baby the public the weaker we become. Our society is going through a massive pussification and I just can't see it ending well.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Time to join the Poker Player Alliance, which has been specifically formed to fight legislation like this. Besides, they've got a pretty neat T-shirt.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I beg to differ. All across the world people get 'worked up' over boobs.
:P
Its just that in the U.S. thats what people object to
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
...and there you go, instant legal online gambling.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Most casino ships are riverboats. They aren't going in international waters. Hell, very few of them even go in interstate waters. A few of them went in the Mississippi to avoid state laws, and then other states picked it up as a convenient excuse for partial legalization.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Protect me from murder.
Protect me from rape, from robbery, from bodily assault.
Protect me from corporations swindling me.
Protect me from bodily damage from others.
But, please, stop protecting me from myself. I can protect me from myself just fine without the government jumping in with a few choice words.
If you're so concerned about those too incompetent to protect themselves from themselves, find a way to either educate them or allow them to continue down their self-destructive path without taking out others along the way.
It's good that you care for those types. (Someone has to.) However, restricting me because a small minority can't restrict themselves is not right.
And if you're doing this because of some moral high ground, go jump off a bridge.
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.
I understand why a government might illegalize casinos, lotteries, and betting, since it is a pernicious vice that many men are drawn into, wasting incalculable amounts of their personal savings in a futile effort to beat the house advantage. So that's fine with me. However this US law is written by the casino special interests and does not have as its end the illegalization of gambling en toto, but merely the prevention of foreign competition in the 'industry'. What outstanding hypocrisy. The world trade body is right to condemn this blatant protectionism by the Americans.
Obligatory Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade
It is not about regulating morality. It's about money and government corruption. The big casinos want a 100% monopoly in exploiting the human weakness that causes people to gamble.
Gambling casinos don't gamble. If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose.
If you play enough, there is no chance in casino games of chance. If you play enough, the end result is ALWAYS 100% determined. You will ALWAYS lose exactly the percentage the casino decides you will lose.
--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?
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
In Canada and England tabled means "present formally for discussion or consideration at a meeting." In the USA tabled means "postpone consideration of." Yes it is confussing.
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.
Not to sound too paranoid, but I care a helluva lot more about the accuracy of the software than I do about if it's legal or not (same could be said for any number of vices, but I'll stick to this one). At least in the physical world, there are a lot of physical mechanisms in place to prevent being [too] taken by the house. Can the same truely be said of the online casinos?
That's an interesting idea.
I have given this considerable thought over the years, since they enabled native american-run casinos in Michigan. If run with care, the proprietors could use the procedes to BUY back land which had been taken from them.
When all else fails, use the invader's rules against him.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"Brick and Mortar" casinos can come out ahead either way it goes.
:)
The big Vegas casinos will be the first to tell you, they *want* internet gambling in the United States. They can trade on the "trust" they've built with people face to face to build their on-line business. Any major customer service business has one major cost: labor. You don't pay dealers on-line, you don't comp drinks, you don't pay waitresses. Just a few admins and bandwidth costs.
If the US outlaws internet gambling, The casinos lose slightly, but come away with a push overall. They can't move into the on-line realm like they want to, but will at least keep the face to face business.
Personally, I would like to see on-line gambling through the major casinos. I'm hesitant to put up money with off shore organizations (why yes, I fully trust you and your Costa Rican LLC! Here's my Visa card!) You'd probably see a slight drop off in gambling related crime. For instance, I wouldn't mind dropping 20-40 bucks a week on the NFL and NHL. But since I don't live in Vegas, I'd have to deal with the local bookie. I'd be a criminal.
The easiest way to get rid of the small time crime (loan sharking, bookmaking, etc) is to make it a large scale crime e.g. a profitable capitalist enterprise
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
/* Gambling casinos don't gamble. If you play enough, you will ALWAYS lose. */
If this was a slot machine, or other game of chance where the casino has a vested interest in you losing all of your money, that would be true.
This seems to be more about poker, though. In poker, you do not play against the casino, you play against the rubes. The house merely takes a percentage (the rake) of the pot. On the $3-$6 tables I play, that starts a $1 per pot.
Now, what happens is that people come and go on this table, and they tend to lose x amount of money before they leave. When one player leaves the table, the pots get smaller, and that means the rake gets smaller.
Now, using this information, it seems to me that the casinos want you to play A LOT of hands.
More players = bigger pots = higher rake
Poker is the one game where the casino does not care at all how much you make or lose at the table, because they only get a percentage of each pot.
A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
assuming all players being equally likely to win
This will almost always be an incorrect assumption in a game of poker.