Legal view - Cardplayer.com

[scrawnybob]

hi

I'm gald to see pokerlisings and pokernews are openly declaring the sites open to US players (as am I albeit in a far far smaller way)

having looked at another thread suggesting we shouldn't even mention which sites have announced their open for US business & keep our heads down - I was starting to think it was really doom and gloom

IFAICS if it's good enough for pokernews & listings then I dont see anything wrong with reporting which sites are open for business and collecting aff signups in the process

In my very humble non lawyer opinion trying to compare the legal advice to a traded co like party with general legal advice (useful to aff and other non traded sites) is maybe not comparible -

they have two different agendas, different people to keep happy and I think the traded companies have their hands tied much more from a PR & Shareholder POV than anything else.

It still keeps IMHO coming back the central fact that the bill IS NOT a specific & absolute "online poker is illegal bill" it IS a backdoor attempt to bring the industry down by Frist etc and the money / bank transfer was the easier option for them to take - hoping it would all fall down.

As much as party have lost a fortune they have also saved a not unsubstantial fortune they figured MIGHT be at risk - they've also released a ruck load of cash as a result of cutting the dividend - If you were in a boardroom responsible to shareholders you'd probably have to do the same - cut 70% to save 30% is still better than having face the music if they didnt and lost 100% in 720 days time.

The other Poker Sites can make up their own mind more freely and will get legal advice according to their position - I know of of self made businesses / family operations (not poker) which did well so launched on AIM / London exchange etc only to find that suddenly they were FORCED to make irrational decisions which were not to their liking and counter to their knowledge of the business because of shareholder responsibility etc. They then find in order to save the company from self destruction they end up taking it back into private ownership / family just get rid of other controlling influences

I really think that suggesting affiliates shouldnt post info on the bill and recommend poker sites who are from their POV open to US players isn't logical.

If this really was (it isn't) the extent of the bills powers then Frist would have single handedly made internet self censoring a reality.

The bill is what it is - A restriction on money transactions for online gambling

The fact that it is aimed at bringing down the industry doesnt mean it should or actually has the legal power to do so - unless we all run off like lemmings screaming as we jump.

scrawnybob

[imteaz]

now all american player will go to casino... live game will be more popular & and casino wil make more money, hehehe

[stillshadow]

Originally Posted by PPP

I'm not going to get into whose lawyers are better lawyers, but the idea that PartyGming didn't spend a fortune on the best lawyers they can find before they decided to lose six billion dollars of value is silly.

Sure, that's true. However, it appears at the least that there is disagreement in the legal world as to the exact extent of this law. If Party wanted to cover their own asses in case of the Feds targeting them, that's fine.

I'm not a lawyer and won't pretend to give legal advice but I do know that we are, at maximum, in a gray legal area. I might be inclined to agree with those that allow me to continue to operate, but I feel like I could do worse than taking the lead of PokerListings, PokerNews, and a handful of gaming lawyers.

[PPP]

What PokerNews does would matter to you if you were based in Lithuania too, but since you are in the US why are you mentioning that?

Why are you thinking there is something noteworthy about non-US based affiliates promoting cardrooms that take US players?

[Jeremy]

I am not going to speak for Tony, Damon, Gareth or anyone else on our team, but to PPP's point, yea the Safe Port Act is not going to just shut us down from promoting ANY card rooms that "accept" U.S. players. That's ridiculous as our company is not even U.S. based and we operate in another jurisdiction. We have market share and websites in several countries and to lose all these sign-ups because of OH MY GOD a U.S. player might click a banner and sign up through our tracker is ridiculous and would be a terrible business decision.

If you're an affiliate and not based in the U.S. it is my thought that you should be carrying on as you always have. Think of it like this, when Italy banned online gaming did people all over the world jump to appease the Italian government and make sure that we didn't get in trouble or indicted by Italy, hell no, aside from some Italian webmasters nobody changed anything or even gave a shit. Same goes for China.

If I were a non U.S. based affiliate (not an operator) I wouldn't be too worried about this law. Again my risk tolerance and gamble are probably much higher than others, so take my opinions for what they are.............opinions.

[PPP]

Right. What the laws of Italy, or China or Iran are may be something I notice, but it wouldn't stop me from putting up a page saying "Poker rooms taking Iranian players". If I lived in Tehran though I'd think twice (or 1000 times...) before putting up such a page.

[Brandon]

Great points PPP and J

My question is this then PPP, been meaning to ask...what are you going to do with your sites?

[CAZ]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

I am not going to speak for Tony, Damon, Gareth or anyone else on our team, but to PPP's point, yea the Safe Port Act is not going to just shut us down from promoting ANY card rooms that "accept" U.S. players. That's ridiculous as our company is not even U.S. based and we operate in another jurisdiction. We have market share and websites in several countries and to lose all these sign-ups because of OH MY GOD a U.S. player might click a banner and sign up through our tracker is ridiculous and would be a terrible business decision.

If you're an affiliate and not based in the U.S. it is my thought that you should be carrying on as you always have. Think of it like this, when Italy banned online gaming did people all over the world jump to appease the Italian government and make sure that we didn't get in trouble or indicted by Italy, hell no, aside from some Italian webmasters nobody changed anything or even gave a shit. Same goes for China.

If I were a non U.S. based affiliate (not an operator) I wouldn't be too worried about this law. Again my risk tolerance and gamble are probably much higher than others, so take my opinions for what they are.............opinions.

And what is your opinion on what U.S based affiliate site operators should do?

[stillshadow]

I'm not going to try to win an argument with anyone as it seems counterproductive to me. No, it isn't as relevant if a site isn't based out of the US but in half of the amateur legal interpretations on this message board people are talking about extradition for affiliates promoting to US players. Thus, of course I think that it is noteworthy for the biggies to still be promoting to the US players and specifically making pages doing so.

I'm sure that they have a lower risk of any sort of prosecution, but I'm just sick of the conflicting and complicated messages that affiliates are sending to one another about this. I don't know what, if any, difference it makes but my sites have always been based out of Canada. I suppose that my risk tolerance and gamble is also higher than the average affiliate so I wouldn't dream of advising anyone about this one way or the other.

[JacksNQueens]

Cardplayer is in a fantasy world if they think nothing has changed. First off regardless of the eventual legal interpertation of the law, things have changed substantially in the market place.

My other point regarding discussing which poker rooms are taking US players and the poker rooms themselves discussing this is that it simply provides all the information in a neat little package for law enforcement to come pick up and take to court.

So if the law is interpreted, as I believe it clearly will be, that any gaming site with US players is operating illegally then all of this discussion and public statements just provide concrete evidence to that fact.

The question you need to ask yourself is this: If you knew 100% that these online gaming sites would be acting illegally under this new law then what would you do? Would you behave in the same way you are behaving now? If yes then fine, then no matter what the law says it wont make any difference to you. If the answer is no then what would you do different?

Also, put yourself in the shoes of any online gaming site. What would you do if you knew 100% that if you continued to accept US players that you would be breaking the law? If you decided to continue accepting US players and risk criminal prosecution and having your site identified and blocked would you behave in the same way that the current gaming rooms are acting?

All of the discussion about how the law will be interpreted will eventually be decided in court. Do I have any volunteers who want to bet five years of their life that their legal interpretation is correct and that there is no legal issue here? What is relevant is not what we think but what the people who will be enforcing the law think because they will be the ones blocking sites and arresting people. Does anyone think that with the previous statements from the Department of Justice and this new law that the people enforcing it don't believe that gaming sites with US players are operating illegally? So everyone's theory will be tested out in court.

Does anyone think that if the DOJ starts pursuing say Bodog that the site will just continue on unaffected? That there wont be problems with banks, credit card processors, and other payment providers. How many banks will be willing to do business with a company that has been indicted in a US court for say violation of this law, the wire act, and money laundering? Not any bank that has a connection in any way to the US.

If your philosophy it to heck with the US laws because their immoral or take away your liberty then fine but, dont think that makes you immune from them. I doubt anyone here is further to the right on the political spectrum than I am but that doesn't stop me from being able to realistically look at what's happening.

These posts for me keep getting longer than I should but it is great to discuss these ideas and see all of the different view points.

Blake
Affiliate Manager
JacksNQueens.com