- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Okay, I’ve pored over the law and read a bunch of articles and I think I have a decent summary of how this law potentially affects webmasters:
http://GamblingAds.com/legal-advertising.html
In very brief summary:
(1) Carrying ads for online gambling isn’t specifically outlawed, anywhere.
(2) If the feds want to get you, they have to charge you with being a *partner* to the illegal activity (i.e., if you’re an affiliate getting paid by revenue-share), or that you’re aiding & abetting the illegal activity by simply linking to the gambling site (no matter how you’re getting paid).
(3) #2 only matters if the sites you’re advertising are violating U.S. law. That would mean they either accept bets on sports from U.S. players (sports bets violate the Wire Act, but casino/poker bets don’t) or they take player money directly through the U.S. banking system (the new Safe Ports UIGEA bill). If the casino/poker room isn’t breaking U.S. law, then neither are you.
(4) The charge of partnering or aiding & abetting is probably a stretch. The info-site Casino City sued the Dept. of Justice a while back and the court said that merely carrying advertising wasn’t aiding & abetting. To my knowledge, no U.S. webmaster has ever been charged for simply accepting ads for online gambling. When the DoJ targeted some major media outlets in 2003 (e.g., Google, Yahoo, print magazines), they sent them warning letters first. Nobody got charged. One magazine did get fined, for taking six months to remove its ads, and the fine was limited to the revenue they received from the ads.
So it looks like the risk to webmasters is small. Though be warned: I am not an attorney and god help you if you rely on this without proper legal counsel.
1. true carrying adds is not a crime.
2. False as a wembamster providing information along with gambling links is okay. For it to become illegal the wire act will need amending. Also we are not receiving no monies directly from U.S citizens.
3. True to a certain degree only if it is done over the phone and you aid in the process of making a bet. The internet does not apply.
4. True
greek39
Greek39, I think you need to read more carefully. A *lot* more carefully. First off, the Wire Act has already been successfully interpreted to include sports betting. The recent arrests of two U.K. citizens should be all the proof you need.
And you could only make comments like “providing information along with gambling links is okay” and “only if it is done over the phone and you aid in the process of making a bet” by ignoring pretty much my entire analysis, so I won’t repeat that here.
If you want to disagree with me, I think you need to read what I wrote first.
I agree in the past we have witnessed a few arrests. Why was the wire act used? this act dates back to 1961 to stop over the telelphone sports betting amoung other things. Aiding and abetting means exactly that. To aid someone to place a wager, the people arrested were doing just that.
The wire act develpoed in 1961 was a law desisgned to curb mobsters from seducing the American public from sports betting. No where in the wire act does it make reference to casinos.
We webmasters operate on a different medium that being the Internet, is this in the wire act? Say if it was are we aiding and abetting? I am not doing the things the wire act was originally designed for. In addition the wire act does make make any reference to the Internet.
Some more common sense is the U.S both at the federal and state level have been battling over this for years. An individual who powers up the computer and lands on a online gambling site. Regardless of whether on purpose or by accident would this be aiding and abetting? Would a webmaster be held accountable? Did the webmaster receive monies directly from the visitor? did the webmaster aid in the casual surfer in finding my site?
Find me just one law pertaining what online gambling webmasters do is illegal.
greek39
MichaelBluejay wrote:First off, the Wire Act has already been successfully interpreted to include sports betting. The recent arrests of two U.K. citizens should be all the proof you need.It is my understanding that it is not the wire act, but the fact that they were taking bets from US citizens over the phone.
That is definitely illegal.
Dominique wrote:It is my understanding that it is not the wire act, but the fact that they were taking bets from US citizens over the phone.Well, that is definitely what the Wire Act addresses (taking bets over the phone). But I looked it up and I see that Caruthers was likely arrested because his company took bets by phone, not over the net. However, the legal opinions I’ve read do say that the Wire Act can easily be applied to the Internet for sports bets (though not for casino/poker). I’ll update the article accordingly.
I’m thinking of no longer promoting Bodog Casino because of their risky activities:
(1) They take sports bets.
(2) They take sports bets over the phone.
(3) They take U.S. player money through U.S. banks (online checks).My reluctance is that I specifically chose Bodog because I think they provide the best player experience, and I don’t know that I’ll find another casino that’s comparable. Any affiliate manager reading this is welcome to invite me to join their program IF they have a casino that meets ALL the following criteria:
(1) No bloated/cumbersome Microgaming software.
(2) No popups/popouts/Javascript alert messages on the casino’s website.
(3) Free-play games: are available with no registration, play in the browser, play in the same window (not an annoying separate window), and work on Macs.
(4) Player email addresses aren’t shared with other companies.I’m not interested in casinos that don’t meet these minimum standards.
Michael,
I agree 100% with your analysis of the Safe Ports/UIGEA. Very nice job.
No offence intended but since when is a telephone classified as the internet. I can’t view the www by using my telephone. Besides how do I control who lands on my site? Your argument would make it a criminal act, even though the legislators nor the law enforcement agencies cannot figure out what exactly the Internet is. If the legislators finally defined the internet how would they prevent me from accidental landing on a criminal site?
greek39
MichaelBluejay wrote:Greek39, I think you need to read more carefully. A *lot* more carefully. First off, the Wire Act has already been successfully interpreted to include sports betting.I’m not sure which state it was that set a precedent, but I am certain that the courts of at least one state ruled that the wire act did not include the internet and that it dealt only with sports wagering. I will look for the exact court opinions and get back to you.
Heres a bit of something its another article by card players lawyer > http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/13599
In the case of In Re Mastercard International , decided on February 23, 2001 , the Honorable Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. was faced with whether the Wire Act applied to online gambling. The suit was brought by deadbeats who didn’t want to pay their gambling debts so they brought suit against credit card companies alleging the credit card companies violated the 1961 Wire Act by allowing them to use the credit card to put money online at a poker site.
The judge analyzed the statute precisely as I have here and he concluded that the Wire Act only prohibited wagering on SPORTS EVENTS. “Comparing the face of the Wire Act and the history surrounding its enactment with the recently proposed legislation, it becomes more certain that the Wire Act’s prohibition of gambling activities is restricted to the types of events enumerated in the statute, sporting events or contests.” ( Id. 132 F. Supp.2d 468, 482.)
Ill keep looking for more.
Thank you Axl for finding us a clearer message. Man are things confusing at this stage. So many varying opinions with no common answers, almost like Philosophy. But all the opinions expressed are of value regardless.
greek39
My take is that in the end the laws themselves DO NOT
matter … the vagueness of it all is enough to brand you a
Criminal from the ” political affiliates ” of the land based
gambling empires. The political will to arrest you is
EVERYTHING and means more than the law itself.
:rolleyes:
greek39 wrote:No offence intended but since when is a telephone classified as the internet. I can’t view the www by using my telephone.I know it’s a bummer but the Wire Act clearly defines the term “wire communication facility”.
The term “wire communication facility” means any and all instrumentalities, personnel, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, or delivery of communications) used or useful in the transmission of writings, signs, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission.
Maybe they stuck “sound” in there to prevent placing bets by morse code.
slotplayer wrote:I know it’s a bummer but the Wire Act clearly defines the term “wire communication facility”.The term “wire communication facility” means any and all instrumentalities, personnel, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, or delivery of communications) used or useful in the transmission of writings, signs, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission.
Maybe they stuck “sound” in there to prevent placing bets by morse code.
What about wireless communication?
greek39 wrote:What about wireless communication?Bingo ! Bingo !
… can a legal beaver elaborate on this … I was
thinking the same thing and actually registered
a few mobile domains last week just in case.
:bigsmile:
That could be interpreted as being the Internet; and I’m sure some legal beavers have done so. But those beavers have also concluded that the wire act Internet or not; deals only in sports betting.
I would like the legal beavers to communicate to everyone where the gambling is taking place. Does it take place in your home in Nevada or does it take place on a server in costa rica where the act is perfecly legal?
