Slashdot Mirror


US Gambling Law May Cause Flouting of IP Laws

Red Flayer writes "Slate Magazine reports that the US's recent actions to clarify restrictions of on-line gambling may have some very important unintended consequences. Antigua has challenged the legitimacy of the US's partial restrictions under the WTO, claiming that the laws represent a free trade infringement. What is so significant about this is that Antigua would be fully justified (and I imagine, would get a lot of support from other nations) in ignoring the US's patent and trademark laws. Freetrade.org has a more in-depth analysis (albeit with a predetermined opinion on the topic). Pre-register now for your copy of Antiguasoft Vista."

25 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Well sure by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

    The U.S. banning Internet gambling is a violation of free trade agreements, but we're doing it for all the "right" reasons.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Well sure by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the problem is that the US hasn't banned internet gambling. It has only banned some internet gambling, including all internet gambling outside the USA. If all internet gambling were banned, the US could cry 'moral grounds' and the problem would go away. But since they aren't, and instead only allow US-based internet gambling...

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    2. Re:Well sure by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Gambling at casinos is very tightly regulated by the government.

      This is true for native reservation casinos, but I'm not sure it applies to casinos within regular land. Vegas, for example, answers mostly to the Nevada gaming commission, not the feds.

      Though, that said, I have to say that I personally think the real reason the government now forbids online gambling is because they don't get the tax revenue from it.

      I don't think you understand how our government works. It doesn't act in the best interests of the government, per se, but in the best interests of the individuals running it. The government is happy to give away billions in subsidies if it means they get a few hundred grand donated to the party campaign fund.

      If you've been following the news maybe you've heard about the recent lobbying scandal where a lobbyist who works for many different groups including a consortium of casinos was busted for bribing members of congress. Hmmm, what could those casinos be bribing members of congress to do? What is it they might want? Maybe outlawing the competition?

    3. Re:Well sure by king-manic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also consistent with our status as an independent nation-state.

      It's incredibly funny that the WTO is being used to abuse the sovereignty of the US. However, it is still an abuse of our right to run our affiars amongst ourselves the way we see fit. Next these jokers will tell Saudi Arabia that the Dutch should be free to export porn there.

      It's NOT a violation of the notion of free trade to ban or restrict items from other countries that are ALREADY banned or restricted domestically.


      The US already uses the WTO to blugeon other nations. They tend to ignore any incovenient rulings against them though. But they freely use it to threaaten others. See the soft wood lumber deal with canada.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    4. Re:Well sure by tweek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      THANK YOU!

      This is another stupid attempt by congress to control people's lives. I don't understand how someone gambling online affects my life or my liberty.

      I base my interpretation of life on pretty much one quote from Thomas Jefferson:

      "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

      -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

      What the hell do I care if someone gambles online? Sure there's the whole "greater good" argument but I never liked that one ;) I don't care if someone is gay, smokes pot or pays for sex either.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
  2. Money laundering and Terrorism? by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTFA if piracy is indeed a breeding ground for money laundering and terrorist operations...

    Huh, I wasn't aware that piracy was actually used as a legitimate front for laundering money - and since it isn't a legitimate business, why not just nab the money launderers on IP infringement charges? I'm also suprised that terrorists are the ones making money by selling infringing media to support their attacks on the western world - it seems that most of the cash in piracy is the simple loss of revenue through supression of sales of new material.

    Sounds like a full helping of FUD.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Money laundering and Terrorism? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Hey, how about putting that quote in its context?
      FTA:
      Two drawbacks of retaliating through intellectual property rights may give pause to Antigua and Barbuda. First, if piracy is indeed a breeding ground for money laundering and terrorist operations, then encouraging the development of a safe haven for intellectual property rights violators may not be in Antigua and Barbuda's interests. Second, Antigua and Barbuda may decide that suspending its obligation to protect the intellectual property rights of American companies is not in its trading interests.
      Maybe you misunderstand -- the US can't nab the launderers on IP charges if they are in Antigua, short of invading.

      it seems that most of the cash in piracy is the simple loss of revenue through supression of sales of new material.
      No, most of the cash in piracy is from selling bootlegged material. What you are describing is potential losses by the IP holders.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  3. the right? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does our government have any constitutional right to outlaw gambling? And even if they do, doesn't the lottery exhibit gross hypocrisy?

    The same can be said of prostitution and many other illegal things.

    Really, our government should be protecting our rights, however trivial, unless there is an obvious, and scientifically-supported public health/safety reason to do otherwise.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:the right? by Daravon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like cigarettes? *ducks*

      --
      I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
    2. Re:the right? by AJWM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does our government have any constitutional right to outlaw gambling?

      Probably not, but it's amazing what the Supreme Court has let Congress get away with under the coloring of the interstate commerce clause. (Congress is constitutionally authorized to regulate interstate commerce, so they throw some fiction about same into almost every bill they think might be a little dodgy. Works, too, except where they're trying to do something explicitly forbidden to them by the constitution.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:the right? by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Probably not, but it's amazing what the Supreme Court has let Congress get away with under the coloring of the interstate commerce clause.
      When the Supremes allows Congress to make regulations affecting food grown by a farmer on his own land and eaten in his own house, they gutted the limitations on the federal government's power. Look also at the recent decision about CA's medicinal marijuana law -- essentially what they said was that the Feds could control it because they have a legitimate interest in so doing -- do they understand the concept of a circular argument?
      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:the right? by TheDukePatio · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The US Government didn't outlaw gambling. They outlawed the method of monetary transfer to gaming sites. While it's a very fine difference, it is a difference nonetheless. They couldn't outlaw gambling because it's a state decided issue (i.e. Nevada & Jersey). The law's intended consequence was to *effectively* ban on-line gambling because US citizens have no way to get funds to/from those sites. They knew they couldn't outlaw gambling so they took away the foundation, the money.

      One of the main problems with the way US laws are passed is the ability to slip things like this in to a larger bill that noone would dare vote 'no' on since it would be political suicide and very few politicians have the balls to stand up on issues like this.

      Sen. Jones: "Don't re-elect Sen. Smith. He voted 'no' on the bill that would outlaw killing babies"
      Sen. Smith: "I voted no because someone slipped in an unrelated ammendment banning sending money to gambling sites"
      Sen. Jones: "But you still voted 'no' to outlawing killing babies! Sen. Smith thinks that babies should be killed on sight!"

      While the above example is extreme, it represents the mentality of politicians in Washington DC with regard to things like this. It's also the amount of swagger that the PACs have in US government. What ever happened to voting on common sense and doing what's right for a change.

      --
      To Alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
    5. Re:the right? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does our government have any constitutional right to outlaw gambling? And even if they do, doesn't the lottery exhibit gross hypocrisy?

      No they don't have any right. This is simply the result of successful lobbying by the casinos. Since when does it matter if it is unconstitutional?

      The same can be said of prostitution and many other illegal things.

      You chose a bad example. Prostitution is not illegal in the US. Most states have made it illegal, but that is a different topic.

      Really, our government should be protecting our rights, however trivial, unless there is an obvious, and scientifically-supported public health/safety reason to do otherwise.

      Yeah, if only here was a method we could use to elect people that would do that. Unfortunately, the majority of people no longer value freedom. This includes both democrats and republicans. Most people think it is perfectly fine to pass laws that take away the rights of others if other people are doing things they disapprove of. The last time I pointed out freedom for individuals to make choices I was told "you're afraid of the democratic process." Freedom is dead as cultural value. It lives on only for a tiny minority and as a buzzword for corrupt politicians trying to pass another law to remove more of it.

    6. Re:the right? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The lottery is no different from any other gambling. There are odds, you know the odds, there is money, you spend the money. The people you give the money to thank you. Someone will definitely win a chunk of that money, but it probably won't be you. Gaming in a casino gives you better odds to win something - the lottery however offers larger payouts than casinos do. Typically you won't find any way to win more than one million at a time in a casino although I guess some of the guaranteed multi-site promotions are running higher than that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Another Rogue Terrorist State? by filesiteguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You realize - if Antigua or anyone else - claims we are violating Free Trade and goes ahead with ignoring IP, we will have no choice but to assign them to the axis of evil and then invade.

    Actually the article was interesting. I wondered what kind of mess the recent online gambling act would create. Oh, and I read, too, that it doesn't anywhere prohibit US firms from creating gambling sites aimed at foreign markets.

    Interesting world, we live in here with the interweb...

    1. Re:Another Rogue Terrorist State? by diersing · · Score: 3, Funny

      They were able to accomplish this by installing a series of one-way valves in the Interweb's tubes.

  5. Great firewall of U.S. next? by Hankenstein · · Score: 5, Insightful


            Yes, it is a stretch, however, anybody else see any similarities between the U.S. forbidding offshore gambling and China forbidding everything *we* think is good?

  6. Re:Huh? by Feyr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the us is part of the WTO, but only obeys it when it suits them. that's nothing new and good luck doing anything about it

  7. RTF article dude, you're way off base by hardcorejon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Next these jokers will tell Saudi Arabia that the Dutch should be free to export porn there.

    The reason Antigua won was because the US laws are not consistent. US was claiming a "moral exemption" but only transactions to offshore casinos were being regulated. Antigua's argument, which the WTO agreed with, was that if you claim the moral exemption, you have to be consistent, across the board.

    If Saudi Arabia only allowed porn from Saudi websites but made Dutch porn illegal, you might have an argument. But if SA decides to ban all porn, the WTO is OK with that too.

    Read the fricking article next time. Someone with such a low slashdot ID as you should know better.

  8. Re:From what I understand, by istartedi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Conversely, if it takes a gambling issue to end "Free Trade", so be it. Any real economist will tell you TANSTAAFL. If people would quit worshiping at the altar of Free Trade, we might actually collect sufficient fees at ports of entry to inspect more than 2 percent of all the cargo that comes in to this country. And no, I'm not talking about terrorists either. Anybody ever add up the economic impact of Chestnut blight, fruit flies, zebra mussels and all the other trade-borne pests? These things never appear on the balance sheet of any Free Trade advocate. We can ammortize that cost slowly, with just enough tarrif to fund a worthwhile inspection and regulation of import/export, or we can shift that cost away from the import/export companies towards the general population, and pay the unpredictable costs of ecological disasters. I prefer the former, but nobody cares, and nobody will listen.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  9. Because it's their second largest industry by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the second FA:

    Gambling and betting services are the second-largest industry in Antigua and Barbuda, after tourism

    If the U.S. effectively outlawed the second largest industry in my country but permitted it in its own, yeah, I'd be upset, too. Remember, gambling isn't illegal in the U.S. In fact, neither is online gambling. Betting on horse racing and online gambling within a state is protected under the law that was recently passed.

  10. Re:Full of misinformation by Lanoitarus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >

    I don't think you understand how credit cards work, let alone this law. The law makes it illegal for any company with OPERATIONS in the US to faciliate payments between US citizens and gambling sites offshore. This does not mean just US companies. For instance, my HSBC (Which is a UK company) credit card is also prohibited from doing this. Technically, if a company with zero US presence were to give me a credit card, they would be allowed to do as they wished--- but without a US presence, how would they bill me?

  11. free trade by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's also consistent with our status as an independent nation-state.

    So India would be consistent in banning US agricultural products then? Maybe you didn't know or don't recall but the WTO trade talks during the summer fell apart because the US and EU refused to stop subsidizing their agribusinesses. Because of this refusal India walked out. Indian farmers can't compete with US or EU farmers who get paid billions of dollars and Euros and then are able to sale food cheaper than it costs to grow. Indian farmers are committing suicide by the thousands because they can't compete in such a lopsided market. Basically the same is happening in Mexico because of NAFTA. Big UG agrobusinesses are able to export corn to Mexico below prices Mexican farmers can grow corn thus causing Mexicans to "illegally immigrate" to the US.

    It's incredibly funny that the WTO is being used to abuse the sovereignty of the US.

    And Bush violated Iraq's national sovereignty by invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Also it's trying to vilate many other countries sovereignty by trying to force them to accept US exports while restricting their exports to the US.

    It's NOT a violation of the notion of free trade to ban or restrict items from other countries that are ALREADY banned or restricted domestically.

    Not all gambling it banned, only some is.

    Falcon
  12. Re:Antiguasoft Vista by ratboy666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not quite.

    Yes, the US *could* either try (1) to make imports from Antigua illegal, or (2) to try to impose tariffs on such goods.

    In any case, Antigua can still sell to other countries. Also, the law or the tariff can come under judgement from the WTO again -- and, again, the US would lose.

    And continue to ignore the WTO (Canada and the softwood lumber dispute -- its happened before)

    Yes, the WTO may be seen as "toothless" by the US, but understand that Europe and China could simply aquire Microsoft/Disney/... goods through Antigua. These companies would be hurthing bad... and the hurting will be put back into policy. Soften up on the gambling; that's Antigua's livelyhood. Or, eliminate on-line gambling. Take your pick, US, you can't have both.

    Ratboy

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  13. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > Yea, And canada wasn't dumping government subsidised lumber in the US forcing mills to close shop in the 90's.

    No it f'n wasn't and WTO agreed. So STFU. Imagine that, a country with a lot of trees couldn't possibly have a natural advantage. Na, they must be dumping. Nevermind the 75 cent dollar exchange advantage for the US for most of that time.

    And you're surprised why the world despises the US? All high and mighty on ideals then breaks them when convenient. If you can't affort to lose on any one industry, DON'T sign free-trade deals!

    > I'm wondering why anyone would buy food from the US with all the bad stuff it does.

    The same reasons people still eat at McDonalds. It's cheap. Most people don't ask too many questions about the things they buy. And the ones that do find everthing else is made in China.