Opinions on the possible online gambling ban/law?? |
|
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:26 am GMT by inopethflames
they were sayin today the law to ban most online gambling passed the house or senate today, and now has to pass the other one to i guess become an official law.
what im wondering is, if anyone knows, say the law to ban internet poker/bj/etc is passed, about how long would it take to take effect? would there be anyway playing online poker for real money still be legally allowed to happen in the usa? all the commercials say 'not a gambling site' and now they seem to be adding 'not real money', but obviously there is real money being played. i dont think an online poker site could get around this law by saying they offer free poker too.
i think if this law passes or if online poker for real money is banned, it will really really really hurt the poker industry, obviously. now realistically if all online gambling was banned it would probably save most people a lot of money, i wish online blackjack was banned, i have lost a ton on pokerroom. com, but i would really like to be able to play real money poker online! im not gonna be wasting my time playing for play money, and itd be a lot less convenient if i have to go to a casino around here, and most people dont live anywhere near a casino.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:32 am GMT by Poto
I'm not even american so I don't really know how these things works but from what I've read elsewhere on the internet the chance of this ban passing the senate is very slim. It was expected that it would pass the house but that's as far as it'll go according to most people.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:38 am GMT by MrDarling
I don't know about the chances of the law passes.
This law, if passes, will make playing online illegal to Americans. Doesn't mean the cops are going to knock your door down if you play, but it means that they will try to shut down every online poker room that is based in America. So if you have money in one of these sites, you might lose it!
They will also try to make it even harder to deposit into this sites. But with all the ewallets around, I doubt they'll manage to control it.
However, will this eliminate online poker? No, most big companies will simply relocate to Europe. I think some of them already did. I know Fulltilt main office and official address is in the UK, so this law will not effect that site at all.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:06 am GMT by Dave B
No online gambling places are allowed in the US already. What they are trying to do now is make it illegal to us a credit card. As far as I can tell, most credit cards dont allow gambling sites to use them already.
I use my checking acct, I dont know if I will be effected or not.
Funny thing, they are using an old law banning gambling over phone lines. What about all the people w/ cable access to the net?
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:09 am GMT by pokerpro888
| inopethflames wrote: | would there be anyway playing online poker for real money still be legally allowed to happen in the usa? all the commercials say 'not a gambling site' and now they seem to be adding 'not real money', but obviously there is real money being played. i dont think an online poker site could get around this law by saying they offer free poker too.
|
The sites that say "not real money" are all .NET (partypoker.NET, paradiespoker.NET) sites. None of them have real money. The money sites all are .COM sites as far as I know.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:43 am GMT by shorn7
Yes. the .Net nomenclature is being used to get around the current US law so that they can advertise on TV here. For some archaic reason, they can't use .Com.
As far as stopping online gaming in the US, that will never happen. The sites themselves and the e-commerce companies will always stay one step ahead of the game. As someone else pointed out, the use of credit cards will probably not be allowed, but if you hook up a checking account to Neteller or PayPal, there is nothing they can do as both of these firms are based outside the US (as are all poker sites) and therefore the US regs. have no control or enforcement ability over them.
Bottom line...there is too much $$ at stake for the collective online gaming community to ever surrender to the US government. And also, when the US government smells potential $$ for themselves, they always end up finding a wya to get their share (bastards....).
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:51 am GMT by zinn0
Just to clarify, Paypal, as far as I know is still based in Palo Alto Ca. Also, I've not found a poker room yet that you can use paypal as a deposit method.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:03 am GMT by UrAteUp
Screw the law makers and the law. How many other freedoms of ours can they take before we have had enough? I say enough is enough...power to the people!!!!
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:48 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
Most credit card companies don't allow you to use the card to deposit to gambling sites already. The bill is behind the curve on this one.
I think everyone needs to go back and read what this law would actually prevent. The bill does not outlaw online gaming. It would outlaw the transfer of funds from US banks to gaming sites and online wallets (like NETeller) that allow transfers to gaming sites. This the government actually can enforce, with some teeth, through the banking system.
I'm not saying there won't be ways around it, but it won't be nearly as difficult to put a major crimp in the pipeline as people think.
Yeah, I'd be concerned. It may not have the votes to pass, but it's not because it's a logistical nightmare.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:49 am GMT by Dave B
Also, I dont think there is any "law" again using .com or .net for either.
They just use .com for the real poker site since that is what most people would default to using. They just needed something different to advertise.
I still want to find a nation w/ the ".fu" so that I can start my own site.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:10 am GMT by vyni
I posted of this yesterday (click to view).
We should note, our comments (or any comments you read online, be it from publishers or even the politicians themselves) are based on our interpretations and should not be read as factual: read the texts yourselves!
HR 4411, the 'Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006' is about transactions with illegal online gambling: yet the I believe the debate continues as to if poker is itself illegal (from what I've read, laws differ on games on chance verses games of skill).
The one we want to watch is HR 4777.
I made a post about it here.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:42 am GMT by lwestatbus
I did a VERY quick read of the law's overview (and am not an attorney). It seems to me that with respect to money transfer there isn't much impact. As others have pointed out none of the US based companies (PayPal, credit cards) can transfer directly to gambling sites and the offshore companies (NetTeller) aren't covered by US regulations. I didn't dig in enough to see if the law prohibits 'laundering' a transfer from a US bank account through NetTeller to a gambling site. Enforcement would be difficult.
The law did have language about prohibiting use of the wires, including the Internet (specifically named now) for transfer of bets or results of bets. Does posting a blind constitute a bet? Probably and the law may be more specific later on. Here enforcement would require monitoring Internet packets for destination and content and tracing them back to their origins. Reminds me of some of the cases built against Napster clients and these techniques may also have been used to catch child porn consumers but I don't know for sure. Again, I didn't read it in depth and am not an attorney. I do have some knowledge of eCommerce technologies and architectures and less about the technical operation of the Internet.
My first caveated read on this is that it gives enforcers the tool to go after online players if they want to. It also opens up a lot of civil liberties bags of worms.
I'll be following this closely.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:50 am GMT by vyni
I just printed the passed version of HR 4411 for a closer look. At a glance, it doesnt appear to have much of an immediate impact, but I think I see it for the ground work/enforcement of HR4777. I'll edit this/update after I've read the complete text.
If HR4777 doesnt pass, this likely has little impact. There have been cases already where poker was declared a game of skill, therefore present laws were not applicable. If HR4777 does pass, well this just gives them all the power they need to go ape shit.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:54 am GMT by Gettin_gone
Is there any provisions in the law requiring internet companies to block access to sites? Is this even legal in the U.S. with their freedom of speech laws? If sites were blocked, I think you would see most shut down since a very high percentage of online players come from the States. You would also see a lot less players at the WSOP since probably half the field in the main event qualify online.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:04 pm GMT by vyni
Censoring and/or filtering the internet.... surely the US would never do that. I mean that something you'ld expect from China, but not the US right?
That's what you would think, but it is on the table. I believe its suggested in the text of HR 4777, but I'm not sure (will look back into it later: pretty sure I had seen it in there last time I looked). Some text to isps blocking users from accessing online casinos, wagering services, etc.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:30 pm GMT by inopethflames
thats one of the things i was wondering about - the poker sites and maybe neteller and things like that could be based in europe, but cant the usa block their sites if your trying to go to them from a location in the usa? so if you live in canada the site is open to you, if your in the usa the site is blocked so you cant access it.
poker has become so big the past few years and everyone says poker isnt gambling, its gaming, or whatever, ud think the govt would make a different provision for poker as opposed to blackjack, slots, etc. why wouldnt the govt just make regulations like i read england has where they get taxes and stuff from the companies. the usa govt would make a ton of money if they did that rather than banning online gambling. it seems like this is being driven by moral ideals that gambling is bad and people blow all their money on it, rather than looking at it as a way to gain more tax dollars.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:38 pm GMT by Dave B
remember, Al Gore gave is the internet, and he (and he alone) can take it away.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:39 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
They won't have to block internet sites. All they need to do is choke off the money flow. That's what 4411 does, and that's the resolution you need to be concerned with. 4777 is unmanageable without it.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:06 pm GMT by Sid Lambert
Sounds like, if it were to pass, which from wut i understand it isn't supposed to get past the senate....then it would just add another middleman....currently, credit cards wont transfer directly to poker rooms, so you transfer to neteller....but if they stop transfers to neteller from credit cards and banks, then the next logical step is to transfer to some ewallet that doesnt allow deposits to poker rooms, then transfer from that ewallet to another one that *does* allow transfers to poker rooms.....so just jump another hoop
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:22 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Sid Lambert wrote: | | so just jump another hoop |
Each hoop thins out the herd a little more though; and I suspect that the banks, as they were with credit cards, would be much more proactive in their enforcement than the government. New sites would be blacklisted pretty quickly.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:03 pm GMT by StarlightCoast
This so called ban does not mean you won't be able to play online poker. The US government cannot stop me and they can't stop you either.
They want to stop the ISP's from putting links to poker sites? Big deal, we have the software downloaded and if not a quick call or email will have the disk at your house in a matter of days.
The banks won't be allowed to send eft's to the poker sites or neteller? Ok I'll send them a money order.
The banks won't be allowed to accept EFT's or transfers? OK suits me just fine. I have a Neteller debit card and so can everyone else. I'll have my money on it within an hour.
The sites will dry up because the USA is 50% of the customer base. There are still plenty of fish in Canada, UK and every other country that has people playing online poker.
Yes, the people who are interested in trying it out for the first time won't want to jump thru hoops to get on, but there are still plenty of others out there. The flow of money will not stop. It will simply come from a different part of the world. At it's peak time Poker Stars has 60,000+ people on playing. If they lost half of that thay still leaves 30,000 people. More than enough to make a decent income from. Play it smart, keep Neteller funded for bonus chasing and hget a Neteller debit card or have them send checks when you withdraw and you have no problems. Oh and by the way if the banks won't cash checks from poker sites because of legislation, that's why they have check cashing services. Another loophole if you will.
Don't worry people, our fish ponds will NOT dry up.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:06 pm GMT by dave374000
| StarlightCoast wrote: | This so called ban does not mean you won't be able to play online poker. The US government cannot stop me and they can't stop you either.
They want to stop the ISP's from putting links to poker sites? Big deal, we have the software downloaded and if not a quick call or email will have the disk at your house in a matter of days. |
While I realize this probably won't happen, what if your government forced all ISPs to block certain IP addresses (ie every online poker site on the planet)?
It's not inconceivable - and not very difficult to accomplish.
As usual, the U.S. gov't is really missing the boat on this one.
They should legalize and regulate online poker. The tax money to be made would be unreal.
Britain has it right.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:12 pm GMT by StarlightCoast
| dave374000 wrote: | They should legalize and regulate online poker. The tax money to be made would be unreal.
Britain has it right. |
I thought there were no taxes on poker winnings in Britain.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:01 pm GMT by khaosanroad
How difficult could it be to get a bank account in Canada anyway?
There will be a small decrease in fish, but not enough to hurt the professional grinders.
If people can still logon and use play money, they will likely get hooked enough to go through the hoops to play for cash.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:27 pm GMT by UrAteUp
Anarchy...thats what I say...lets over throw the government and make online poker the offical game of the US...  .
Seriously though they can try and stop you from playing in a million ways but poker sites want your business and your money so they will find work arounds themselves. If not as Sid said, you just have to jump from one hoop through another then into your site.
They will stop me from playing online poker when they pry my mouse from my cold dead hands... 
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:29 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| UrAteUp wrote: | | They will stop me from playing online poker when they pry my mouse from my cold dead hands... |
They just need to make it mildly inconvenient for me. I'm a pushover.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:36 pm GMT by vyni
I find it ammusing that in the hour of debate on the floor, terrorism was suggested about 8 times. Reading remarks from both sides of the issue, sounds like 75% of them had not even read the damn thing.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:40 pm GMT by UrAteUp
double post...not sure how though
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:40 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| vyni wrote: | | I find it ammusing that in the hour of debate on the floor, terrorism was suggested about 8 times. Reading remarks from both sides of the issue, sounds like 75% of them had not even read the damn thing. |
And this surprises you vyni? Hell they don't read 3/4 of what gets signed in or voted on. Yet we pay them and elect them to do what is in our best interests. I say we fire the lot of them and start over... . Hell vyni I would vote you in if you lived in my state. You already read more of that bill then I am sure anyone from my state government has...
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:41 pm GMT by shorn7
| vyni wrote: | | I find it ammusing that in the hour of debate on the floor, terrorism was suggested about 8 times. Reading remarks from both sides of the issue, sounds like 75% of them had not even read the damn thing. |
Do you really find that shocking??? They are all a bunch of putz's and all they are good at is spending WAY WAY too much $$.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:48 pm GMT by vyni
Never said shocking, just ammusing.
They preach terror on everything now, I know.
Just continue to laugh about it.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:10 pm GMT by arras
| Quote: | | "I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially ... the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material." |
Alaska's senior US Senator, Ted Stevens
This quote is about the tiered internet that is being pushed now, but still shows how freaking inept some of our legislators are.
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:22 pm GMT by Sid Lambert
the 'internet is tubes' meme is gaining a small foothold....stevens is an idiot for that reason and many others, google his punkass....doofus is 3rd in line for presidency btw...
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:35 pm GMT by UrAteUp
I just don't understand how they see the internet as a tube theory as plausable... . In a way it is but it is one big ass tube. With the invent of fiber optics and other data carrying applications the internet will open wide. Clogs on the internet are usually the result of people with computer problems such as spyware and viri. Not that the "tube" is congested. His problem is probably the fact that his cheap ass is still on dial-up and using AOL....
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:47 pm GMT by vyni
Now we see the truth.
Roto rooter found poker chips clogging the internet tube.
If we use smaller chips, then they'll leave it alone
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:48 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
So should I just pull my money out before it's too late, or what?
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:19 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | So should I just pull my money out before it's too late, or what? |
Nah just give me your password and I will keep it safe for you Diamond...
Posted Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:01 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | So should I just pull my money out before it's too late, or what? |
There will be a "grandfather" period before it goes into effect, if it should pass.
I guess we'll find out how financially viable the sites are should that happen.
Posted Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:47 am GMT by khaosanroad
So all donks are really just terrorists dumping chips onto their terrorist buddies here in America?
Posted Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:23 am GMT by Jernej Zorec
well guys i dont think u have to worry
ther eis an artice about it on cardplayer with analysis of it,
and when i just glanced through i noticed it says that the bill prohibits poker sites from accepting the money which is a joke considering none of them are registered in usa.
oh here is the link
http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/15416
Posted Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:56 am GMT by arras
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DClkE64nFDY&search=net%20neutrality%20stewart
contains some talk about the quote I posted earlier and the current topic on hand.
Posted Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:03 pm GMT by flafishy
| Sid Lambert wrote: | | Sounds like, if it were to pass, which from wut i understand it isn't supposed to get past the senate....then it would just add another middleman....currently, credit cards wont transfer directly to poker rooms, so you transfer to neteller....but if they stop transfers to neteller from credit cards and banks, then the next logical step is to transfer to some ewallet that doesnt allow deposits to poker rooms, then transfer from that ewallet to another one that *does* allow transfers to poker rooms.....so just jump another hoop |
They cannot ban money transfers to Neteller because Neteller is not exclusively a conduit for gambling sites. I can use Neteller to purchase a product from you, and there is nothing illegal about that. Because of that, banks cannot refuse to EFT to or from Neteller.
At least not because of a federal law. Not sure what the problem is with Neteller and Maryland, but that is a state issue.
Actually, I would imagine that if someone were to try to mount a court challenge, PokerRoom, Absolute Poker and at least a few others might be able to tear down the whole issue of banning money transfers. They do have stores, and you do have to transfer money to them to buy products from them. From that angle, banning EFTs with them is highly illegal and violates about 9,000 international trade laws.
Posted Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:07 pm GMT by vyni
Of stewart, I liked this: http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1513010
Of the wire act updates: international enforcement is impossible, so I dont understand what they're doing. I cant imagine it effecting average players immediately.
Posted Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:43 pm GMT by Sid Lambert
| arras wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DClkE64nFDY&search=net%20neutrality%20stewart
contains some talk about the quote I posted earlier and the current topic on hand. |
aww man, thats good stuff
|
|
