US Gambling Law May Cause Flouting of IP Laws 231
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."
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
Well sure (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well sure (Score:5, Insightful)
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:2)
I realize what you're saying. I'm quite aware of what the US allows in the way of gaming - I work in a Tribal casino in northern California. The US might allow internet gambling, but no state allows it.
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)
Indian gaming (Score:2)
The fact that the USA allows casinos is irrelevent. Read the article, the problem is that the US allows in-state, horse-racing, and gambling sites based on Native American reservations to operated unimpeded.
There's not really much the US can do to prevent Indian gaming as long as the casinoes are on reservation. None of the treaties signed between Indian tribes and the US government, of which the US has broken a bunch already, bars tribes from having casinoes.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they have, unless there is an exception that I don't know about.
(they haven't banned gambling in person, though many states have).
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
But only the truley foolish will follow the conspiracy. You see, It is illegal to rig gambling in the houses faover on a federal level. State gaming commisions are chartered to support or enforce his idea. They operate with federal autority even though they are a state organizations. The nevada gaming commishion can call the FBI into play at any time and even access ot
buyer beware (Score:2)
So online gambling, If we can guarentee a fair game, good. If we cannot - bad. Over seas online gambling- outside our ability to even think about checking on it- shouldn't be allowed. Then we can say "buyer beware" without a bunch of "Wha..I lost my home"ers complaining they were cheated afterwards.
The subject bar contains the keywords, "buyer beware". As long as a third party isn't getting harmed something should not be made illegal. Especially here in the USA which is supposed to be the land of the f
Re: (Score:2)
"So online gambling, If we can guarentee a fair game, good. If we cannot - bad. Over seas online gambling- outside our ability to even think about checking on it- shouldn't be allowed. Then we can say "buyer beware" without a bunch of "Wha..I lost my home"ers complaining they were cheated afterwards."
buyer beware. The government cannot and SHOULD not try to protect people from stupidity. People are stupid. I'm stupid and you're stupid. We do stupi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because an online casino may be in another country, where we have zero legal authority to regulate it. If it's domestic, then states, towns, counties, or the entire country can decide whether to allow gambling. (People can always travel to a casino, but the less convenient such travel is, the less likely people are to do it.) We can also do things like impose regulations to prohibit casino-side cheating and so on.
Now in reality, a ba
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Obligatory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's what the issue is... according to TFA, that's the argument the US is trying to use: "We have a right to protect the morality of our citizens."
What Antigua is saying, however, is that online gambling is NOT restricted in the US (i.e. betting on horse races, state lotteries, etc. are all legal) and that to ban online gambling by foreign countries while still allowing local companies the right to let people bet online is an unfair restriction of trade. I tend to agree with Antigua, and the WTO has as
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Indeed it isn't - nor would it be a WTO violation. The problem, as I understand the WTO argument, is that the US _does_ allow online gambling but only for US companies. That breaks WTO rules just like if the US banned the sale of non-US oranges - the US is still free to ban the sale of oranges altogether.
Note also that WTO doesn't affect sovereignty - it's a mut
IP (Score:2)
The interesting thing here is that Antigua is so small it can't recover its damages from the US in the usual fashion, so it is asking for the novel relief of being granted the right to copy US-produced IP without paying the usual royalties. Since global enforcement of copyright relies on similar mutual agreement to WTO (might even come under WTO?), this might even work.
IP comes under the WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization [wipo.int] amoung other treaties and organizations such as the Berne Convention [cornell.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
C//
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.
FalconRe: (Score:3, Insightful)
They banned gambling in the US? Oh, only gambling OVERSEAS. I think that is the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, we gave up that little bit of "sovereignty" when we joined the WTO. Treaties are the law of the land, according to the Constitution. The WTO isn't being used to abuse us; the whole point of treaties is that we give up something in exchange for getting something from the other signatories.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You guys can be sovereign all you want, but if you want someone else to do something for YOU, you're going to have to do something for THEM.
Re: (Score:2)
Protect its citizens from WHAT, specifically?
drug patents (Score:2)
Of course, for much the same reasons, a lot of countries wish to violate US patents on drugs.
Actually there is a clause in the WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization, agreements that allow countries such as South Africa to make or import generic drugs in cases where a lot of doses of drugs are needed to treat a bunch of people who otherwise couldn't afford the drug.
FalconMoney 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.
Those who ignore history... (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I get pissed because Georgia follows the same hipocracy of outlawing gambling while having
Re: (Score:2)
"A lottery is but a tax on fools" - Unknown.
I've always herd it as, "The lottery is a tax on people who can't do math."
Re: (Score:2)
"Aye hen, if it weren't for the cigarettes and the horses, we wouldn't be able to afford to stay on social security".
Recently, Scotland passed legislation to ban smoking from inside public places. The side effect was that the bingo halls started closing down, as the players who normally spent all their winnings on the slot machines now rushed outside for a smoke, then decided to go home rather than back inside.
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.)
Re:the right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A strict reading of the constitution shows that the Feds are allowed to regulate "Commerce ...among the several States," in other words, actual interstate commerce and not "anything that affects interstate commerce." Fundamentally, it is hard to think of any activity that does not affect some kind of interstate commerce, givi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As to Constitutional right, since when has that mattered?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The American Gaming Assocation (MGM, Harrahs etc) is opposed to federal restrictions on online gambling
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!*
Re: (Score:2)
I think you left a hole in your arguement. And, no, a problem does not need to be pandemic to be a public health/safety concern.
(To stretch it a bit further, also bear in mind the current-age/liberal definition of of the word "health". It has changed over the last few years in both medical and legal terms.)
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that has blown me away is how "soft" the military has become. And I'm not regurgitating some stupid Michael Savage/Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh talking point here.
For all intents and purposes, we've been "gentle" in Iraq. We have much more firepower at our disposal b
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I suppose that the USA could have learnt a great deal from Israels tremendous success in using such heavy-handed tactics. It certainly seems to be working for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Thats why I said it'd be great TV.
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:2, Interesting)
No, actually they don't. The federal govt. would like you to THINK they do, but the reality is the US Govt cannot do so. The laws that existed prior to what got snuck into the safe port act have to do with interstate gambling. e.g.: Me, in Missouri, placing bets on the phone to a bookie in California. They can't pass a
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yes, but... (Score:2)
Yes, but does it run GNU/Antigua?
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
Simple Solution (Score:2)
You can then point and show that they have equal access to the gambling market t
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
zebra mussels (Score:2)
Have you seen what zebra mussels are doing to the Great Lakes? They cause hugh problems in the lakes. But it's not like they were intentionally imported, instead they came with the ballast water. It's not really much different than many other invasive species such as kudzo along the Mississippi in the south.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Torrent?
~X~