Slashdot Log In
US Gambling Law May Cause Flouting of IP Laws
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Nov 16, 2006 04:24 PM
from the tit-for-tat dept.
from the tit-for-tat dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: US Outlaws Online Gambling 579 comments
imaginaryelf writes, "As reported earlier on Slashdot, in the closing hours of the US Congressional session on Friday, September 29, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R.4411.RH) was attached to the Safe Port Act of 2006 H.R.4954.EAS.
To the surprise of many, the bill passed both the House and the Senate, and Bush is expected to sign it into law this week. This effectively outlaws online gambling in the US, by way of making it illegal for credit-card companies to collect payments for bets. The financial markets punished the stock of online gambling companies as some prepared to pull out of the US entirely."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Antiguasoft Vista (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patents might be different, since patent law forbids the importation of products that violate US patents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Antiguasoft Vista (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Parent
Well sure (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not arguing that internet gambling and casino gambling are the same thing. No need: the USA has legal internet gambling sites that they are protecting, in direct v
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they do. To the best of my knowledge, every single US state permits online gambling. Residents of any state can quite legally go to an online broker and gamble on commodities or forex futures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Well sure (Score:4, 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?
Parent
Re:Well sure (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
RTF article dude, you're way off base (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Well sure (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
free trade (Score:5, 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.
FalconParent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They banned gambling in the US? Oh, only gambling OVERSEAS. I think that is the issue.
Money laundering and Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Money laundering and Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: Maybe you misunderstand -- the US can't nab the launderers on IP charges if they are in Antigua, short of invading.
No, most of the cash in piracy is from selling bootlegged material. What you are describing is potential losses by the IP holders.
Parent
the right? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"A lottery is but a tax on fools" - Unknown.
Re:the right? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:the right? (Score:5, 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. (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.)
Parent
Re:the right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As to Constitutional right, since when has that mattered?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the right? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:the right? (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?
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You chose a bad example. Prostitution is not illegal in the US. Most states have made it illegal, but that is a different topic.
Though it does explain why Congress isn't all behind bars. *Rimshot!*
Another Rogue Terrorist State? (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the law already prohibits operating a game of chance within the borders of the various states besides Nevada. Nevada prohibits running an online gaming operation, though they do allow the subtly-different "mobile gaming" IIRC.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
General Shinseki told Rumsfeld he needed N guys with rifles to hold Iraq. Rumsfeld said you'll do it with N/3. Guess who was right?
Great firewall of U.S. next? (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?
The whole internet gambling thing is easily solved (Score:2)
Full of misinformation (Score:3, Insightful)
2) The act in question does not do that at all. Instead it makes it illegal for US credit card companies to send payments to Internet Gambling sites. Again, this is entirely legal for the US to do. It is not a free trade issue at all. In fact, it gives a HUGE advantage to non-US companies. Foreign Credit card companies are happy, they may break into the US market. If you get a European Credit Card, even when in the US, you may use your European Credit Card to pay gambling debts to Internet gambling sites, because the European Credit Card company is not subject to US laws.
3) The problem that Antigua is claiming is that the US does allow certain types of Internet gambling, and therefore under WTO agreements, it must allow all. The WTO has offered the US to either fully ban all internet gamblign of any kind, or to let all in. The US has not yet decided which to do. The WTO would be fine if the US banned everything.
4) The problem has NOTHING at all to do with the recently passed Act, the Antigua law suit was begun in 2003, the Act passed in 2006.
5) I think the idea that Antigua would violate patents and copyrights more than it already does is silly. The US has so many, many, ways, far short of violence to punish Antigua, such as cutting off ALL payments of any kind to any company based in Antigua, that it would stupid for Antigua to do this. Instead, they will do something smarter, like impose a Tax on US services.
Re: (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
that's not "free trade" (Score:3, Insightful)
Sortof like the Supreme Court case a couple years ago that said if a state allows wineries within the state to ship wine to indivual people, they have to allow other states to ship wine into the state to individual people.
Internet gambling (Score:3, Insightful)
An online casino has none of these. You can operate out of a basement somewhere. No rules, no oversight, no regulation. And, perhaps most importantly, no taxation. The rules the casinos have to follow in Las Vegas ensures two things: fair play and reporting every dime of "take" by the casino as well as every dime won by players. An offshore online casino is not going to be subject to these requirements.
Of course the "fair play" regulation is going to be waved about. As well it should. How the heck do you know anything about an online casino, anyway? Through their advertising? Player testamonials? Somehow I don't think that comes anywhere near reality.
And I doubt very much if you open the door to Internet gaming in general if you are going to be able to regulate it in any manner whatsoever. How would any government prevent some Ponzi-style operation from having a casino where everyone wins for the first couple of weeks? How long would you really need to keep it going? A month? Two? I guess it would depend on how greedy you were. I can't imagine any way of regulating such operations. And believe me, I would want to set up my very own online casino tomorrow if I could. Can't imagine a better way to bring in a lot of cash fast. Even a quasi-legitimate operation that returns 99.99% of all money bet would have incredible payoff to the operator.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An online casino has none of these. You can operate out of a basement somewhere. No rules, no oversight, no regulation.
You suffer from the misperception that entities opereating outside United States law operate outside all law. This is not the case. Many online casinos are based in England, which regulates them heavily to ensure fair play. The same is true of Antiguan casinos. If the government does not regulate (and therefore certify) the fairness of the casino, there will be significantly diminished
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Feds did not ban Internet gambling. They banned certain wire transfers of money.
Follow the money.
KFG
Because it's their second largest industry (Score:5, Interesting)
From the second FA:
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.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
If the US is found to be violating WTO rules with its gambling legislation and refuses to change them, Antigua is entitled to apply to the WTO for relief (i.e. punishment for the US). Generally this would take the form of tariffs on US products, but retaliation can also take the form of suspending IP protection for American goods. In this case, within th
Re:From what I understand, (Score:4, 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.
Parent