U.S. Congresses Passes I-gaming Prohibition

[WebMeisterQ]

Very interesting reading today, sorry I've been away so long, but it is after all football season...keeping me (us) very busy...all the best to you all during this stressful time.

[Dominique]

Just a few quick comments.

1. Don't panic. Casino City spent some time researching and thinking about the implications of the full bills as originally proposed, and came to the conclusion there were fairly straitforward adjustments we could make without significant cost that would allow our business to continue without significant effect in a fashion that was fully compliant with legal requirements.

2. It will take a little time to research and understand the implications of the new bills. Right now there is a lot of crazy speculation and hysteria going around. Don't fall victim to it.

3. You can count on us to research the real details and report the true implications for portal webmasters as they are determined and/or become apparent.

4. You can count on us to share solutions to the issues as we see them.

5. Casino City is much more visible, and a much more likely target than the vast majority of portal websites because of our scale of operations. I'm going to sleep fine tonight, and you should too.

Michael

I feel exactly the same, I am very highly visible and will be sleeping soundly tonight.

The more I read the bill and the more opinions I hear, the less my immediate worries are.

I see the bill that passed as an attempt to save face because the original bills could not pass.

The underhanded way in which it was passed speaks to that too.

[slotplayer]

absence of state laws to the contrary.

That is the key phrase. It varies so widely from state to state. Some states do not allow gambing of any sort.

While some others don't allow creditcard usage for lottery ticket purchase. Some racing tracks do not even have ATM's for cash withdrawals while some do.

I'd like to see a break down from state to state.

[Spearmaster]

Michael's reading of the situation is very much in common with what I posted elsewhere based on my initial reading of the bill. I did not know he was also a web hosting service....

The detail on the "circumvent" is interesting, perhaps very useful - but I think you should take a close look at section 5367 of that bill and make doubly sure - you're probably covered as you're not an operator

Switching hosting overseas is an easy way out. However, what Michael is proposing may actually be more practical.

[dhayman]

It is very interesting to read the posts on this thread. I know that Casino City has
been in the "limelight" for some time now, and I respect Michael's opinion, and
more importantly, his ability to lead and take risks in this fight.

Although I am quite despondent over this backdoor legislation being passed (and
am a pessimist by nature), having been able to think things over for a couple of
days, after watching C-Span, I've come to the following conclusions and have
the following questions:

1) This last ditch effort to append a watered-down version of the original bill,
was done as a compromise to get it passed. To me, 90 % of this was
done to help an ailing political party retain its majority in the House (the Senate
is a non-issue, since it will more than likely remain Republican after the
elections). Leach, Frist, Kyl, and company can now incorporate that they are
"cleaning up America" during their campaign speeches.

2) Most Congressional members are public servants who would be incapable of
functioning in a private, corporate profit-oriented environment. They are
incapable of thinking outside of the box, and fail to see the huge nugget that
they are throwing away by not introducing the concept of gambling
legalization. You can bet that the land-casinos have Internet development
activities underway, in anticipation of potential legalization. Legalization would
be a huge windfall for the U.S., although admittedly, it may put many of the
overseas gambling entities out of business, and would effect (or at least
change) our roles as affiliates. It's OK for the current administration to put
our country in further debt with its agenda (war), but no one sees gambling
as a huge multi-billion windfall, if legalized ? Oh wait, they do to a certain
extent.....horse racing, lotteries, Indian reservation carveouts, etc.

3) This is a lose-lose scenario for the banking industry. They will be imposed
to spend resources on solutions that may be non-enforceable, at their own
cost. And, their solutions will presumably result in lost transactions, that will
also cost them in the pocket book. They can indirectly kill this bill, by adding a
lot of interference and delay. Does anyone know what happens if they cannot
implement a global banking solution within this 270-day limit ? Does the law
get repealed ?

4) Like Casino City, my affiliate link redirects are wrapped in a CGI program,
counts clicks in a local database, and then subsequently redirects out to my
vendors, with my affiliate ID attached. Given this, can a governmental auditor
really determine if the link is affiliate-related or just informational in nature ?
If just informational in nature, isn't asking removal of these links a violation of
my freedom of speech ? In other words, doesn't this bill's requirements cross
the legal boundaries of much more well-established legislation (like the Bill of
Rights) ?

5) NETeller (to use an intermediary bank as an example) is diversifying its business
interests outside of gambling. As an affiliate marketer, can this legislation block
payments from NETeller to my local bank, just because it is NETeller ?? After
all, how can US legislation block NETeller transactions outright legally ? And there
is no way that U.S. legislation could mandate NETeller, a Canadian company, to
ID its transactions, to separate gambling from non-gambling entities, right ?

Anyway, just some random thoughts, commentary, and questions. I still think that
this is a real wake-up call to all of us, to start diversifying our businesses. The rules
have been severely changed by this administration - anything they want gets done,
regardless of how practical or logical or reasonable it may be. Many thought that this
legislation would never pass, but nothing really suprises me about this Bush
Administration any more.

Keep the commentary coming. Great posts here.

[diceman]

I am giving everyone an E-hug....

(mmmm.....)

[MichaelCorfman]

3) This is a lose-lose scenario for the banking industry. They will be imposed to spend resources on solutions that may be non-enforceable, at their own cost. And, their solutions will presumably result in lost transactions, that will also cost them in the pocket book. They can indirectly kill this bill, by adding a lot of interference and delay. Does anyone know what happens if they cannotimplement a global banking solution within this 270-day limit ? Does the law get repealed ?

The bill stipulated that regulations be developed within 270 days. It does not stipulate the timetable for enforcement of any regulations. You can bet that the banking industry will be doing everything they can to minimize the burden imposed by the regulations - especially since the bill indicates the regulations should be constructed so they are not overly burdensome.

4) Like Casino City, my affiliate link redirects are wrapped in a CGI program, counts clicks in a local database, and then subsequently redirects out to my vendors, with my affiliate ID attached. Given this, can a governmental auditor really determine if the link is affiliate-related or just informational in nature? If just informational in nature, isn't asking removal of these links a violation of my freedom of speech? In other words, doesn't this bill's requirements cross the legal boundaries of much more well-established legislation (like the Bill of Rights)?

Under the terms of the bill, one can be effectively prohibited from having a link to an online gambling site. There is a safe harbor, whereby you are immune from the provisions of the statute if you remove such links. The theory is that if Casino City locates the script that redirects to online gambling sites outside the US, then we will have no links to online gambling sites within the US, and we will thus be protected under the safe harbor provision of the statute. The statute does not distinguish between affiliate links and informational links to online gambling sites - they are both prohibited under the terms of the statute. By prohibited, I don't mean you can't have them - you can. However, there are legal risks if they are left up after you have been asked to remove them by the government.

5) NETeller (to use an intermediary bank as an example) is diversifying its business interests outside of gambling. As an affiliate marketer, can this legislation block payments from NETeller to my local bank, just because it is NETeller?? After all, how can US legislation block NETeller transactions outright legally? And there is no way that U.S. legislation could mandate NETeller, a Canadian company, to ID its transactions, to separate gambling from non-gambling entities, right?

I think it is premature to speculate about banking regulations and requirements. The banking industry will want to have them be as watered down as possible, and will want to delay their implementation as long as possible also. I expect there will be decent work-arounds in place before current payment methods are disrupted. I do think the few instances where US credit cards can be used will vanish.

Michael

[MichaelCorfman]

Michael's reading of the situation is very much in common with what I posted elsewhere based on my initial reading of the bill. I did not know he was also a web hosting service....

The detail on the "circumvent" is interesting, perhaps very useful - but I think you should take a close look at section 5367 of that bill and make doubly sure - you're probably covered as you're not an operator

Switching hosting overseas is an easy way out. However, what Michael is proposing may actually be more practical.

We are definitely not an operator and I've definitely taken a close look at section 5367. Lousiana state law (where our advertising subsidiary is incorporated) specifically stipulates that advertising an online gaming site does not constitute being in the business of online gambling.

Michael

[dhayman]

For some reason, 888.com is rumored to be pulling the plug on US customers tomorrow morning (Monday):

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15095619/

It is unclear to me personally, as to why they would take this action before the dust clears........however, this is not a good omen, and others may follow the big boys, in this case.

[Maxfalcon]

All stocks of the most important companies have lost as much as 2/3 of their values in the first hours of trading.

Neteller, PlayTech, PartyGaming, SportingBet, 888... have been hit very hardly.

I'm not too sure about the future, in light of the preliminary announcements from these companies.

It only rests the Bush signature... IMO if I would be 100% sure that Bush won't sign the law, I would be buying thousands and thousands of gaming stocks by now.

[Ziggy]

Indeed, the Stock Market does not appear thrilled at the U.S. Congress action.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15102480/

[J]

Check this out:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...egambling.html

[Dominique]

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...key=1159811363

[Ziggy]

For those wishing to sign a peition in support of online gambling, here it is:

http://www.petitiononline.com/LOGNOW/petition.html

[WebMeisterQ]

ABC Gambling Poll

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/popup?id=2516519

[Ziggy]

In the wee hours of the morning this past Saturday, September 30, 2006, the United States Senate, deviously orchestrated by that famous "slight of hand artist," Majority Leader (leader?) Senator Bill Frist, quietly attached an anti-online gambling bill to the very necessary Port Security Act with little knowledge of the public or even discussion or comment by other Senators. 12:30 a.m.? This is suppose to be an example of our highly honored, American legislative process?

If our nations' Congress, who stealthfully slid this through the fog of night, had kept as stealthful an eye on Child Pages serving Congress, maybe these young Congressional Pages would not have been so freely targeted for abuse within the halls of our nation's capital.

Instead, they chose to take their myopic scopes and aim them on Freedom of Choice by the American people who enjoy gambling online. Why? To hopefully keep their seats on their nice comfortable chairs in congress; along with their fully paid health insurance; retirement; and whatever else they can "pass through the fog of night." They truly are welfare recipients - we pay everything for them; yet they choose to take away yet another freedom out of simple greed and the epitome of narcissism.

Yes; it is time for a change in our government. We are a sham to the international community. America and freedom of choice always went hand-in-hand. The salacious actions by our federal legislature, the executive branch not-with-standing, have only embarrassed American citizens around the world.

I would hope that you would approach this topic of the Anti-Gambling Bill that was so secretly passed. This was not just happenstance; but a symptom. It needs to be discussed for this reason alone: it was hidden just as Congressman Foley's improper, harmful actions with Congressional Pages were hidden from view.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

James Lowery

For what its worth, I am sending the above to as many news media folks and whoever will listen. If I wind up behind bars, your taxes can feed me, clothe me, and pay the electric bill. (No, I will not drop the soap in the showers).

[aksana]

Thank you guys. You gave a lot of information. I have already studied all this docs. But I want to elaborate several things:
1. Is it necessary to change hosting to another one located outside USA?
2. Will USA citizens be able to play online casino? (I see that 888.com, William Hill and other large companies are going to suspend accepting USA players)
3. If I change my hosting located outside USA will USA players be able to go online casino from my site?

[Ziggy]

I personally think we need to let the dust settle from this congressional action before we make too hasty decisions regarding hosting offshore, etc.

A friend of mine is ALREADY getting spammed about hosting offshore...go figure.

I think there is time to be patient and see what happens as each day passes.

[Badlands]

Aksana wrote:

"3. If I change my hosting located outside USA will USA players be able to go online casino from my site?"

Aksana, I moved my hosting to Canada over three years ago for all of my sites (including those not related to gambling) and have never had a problem.

Gregg

[Dominique]

I just love the signature above:

The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.