Showing results for: ""
Do you even remember that at first, when the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was introduced, it was compared to the Prohibition Era? Meanwhile, the Poker Prohibition has been enforced, aggressively so, but (almost) a year later is still on the table. In fact - it is on many tables, including editorial desks, Capitol Hill, even on podiums at Presidential debates. Another opinion was expressed this week, joining editorials from a number of American publications. The latest was authored and signed by New Jersey Representatives Steve Israel (Democrat) and Pete King (Republican). It appeared in the New York Post. The cross-party, high profile partnership on the issue raises the validity of some of the arguments. These include a call to tax the business, not ban it, for the economic value of doing so. It also calls for the Treasury Department, responsible for enforcing the Act, to keep itself focused on its more important tasks (investigating counterfeit money, tracking terrorist financing, protecting the President) and not invest its energies in yet another task. Concern of gamblers' safety is also a valid and even powerful argument. Americans are still able to gamble online, and are surely going to continue doing so, only now they lack the protection that a regulating body (i.e. the government) could provide them with. Israel and King are supporters of the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA). It is a large framework for a future of gambling, regulated and taxed to everyone's satisfaction. So is a change in the making? What is clear at the moment is that the issue is still on many powerful people's minds and on powerful newspaper's pages.
Online casino companies are now able to advertise on television, this according to the standards and regulations set by the UK Gambling Act 2005, only recently enacted. This brings the gambling world closer than it ever was with the traditional media, itself not as traditional as it once used to be. A sign of this is the deal signed between PartyGaming Online and British broadcasters ITV. The white label deal will have the software firm provide their products to the biggest commercial television network in the UK. The two companies have already been working together under contract, with the software provider's online poker and casino websites linked to from the TV company's website. The new deal, only three months after the cooperation began, will have their products on the website itself, no link in the middle. The games on the TV company's site will include blackjack, roulette, slot machines and others. The business background makes sense for both sides of the deal. ITV has been losing income from advertising as more campaigns shift to the Internet. PartyGaming is on its way to recuperate fully from having to withdraw from the US market a year ago. True, such deals have not always worked out for the best previously. Cooperation between ITV and Sportech has even been terminated after proving a failure, earlier this year. Both companies, however, have since done well business-wise. As for the new deal, no details were provided, though it is likely for the duration of about three years, as is customary in the business. Moreover, it might lead to the casino company advertising on television in their own campaign. Most agreements of this kind are for durations of at least three years and the relationship opens up the possibility of a reciprocal deal that would see PartyGaming advertise on ITV. In the meantime, it proves it can play and even partner with major and mainstream media companies.
The long preparatory period since 2005 that resulted in the recently enacted gambling Act in the UK has not settled the debate around Internet gambling. True, gambling online is now legitimate, legal, even protected regulated and providing protection for minors and problem gamblers. But not everything is working out so peachy. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and his predecessor Tony Blair, as well as secretary of the department of Culture, Media and Sport James Purnell, and his predecessor Tessa Jowell have all been criticized for some of their decisions and for the results that followed. The online daily newspaper The Telegraph is the latest to publish a critical column of the new reality that we have entered regarding gambling online in the UK. The somewhat disagreeing words claim there is nothing new in this post September 1, 2007 age. It adds that there is even some negative effects. The gambling act allows casino companies to operate from such low tax havens, all European Economic Association, as Malta, thus avoiding a considerably high 15% tax they will have to pay on profits in the UK. Meanwhile, they are fully welcome in the competition and can even advertise their site son television. Moreover, not only the tax revenue lost and non-protectionist policy, but it has become more frequent and commonplace to receive via email and other targeted media to solicit potential customers. Spamming, by all means, is uncool. Can the Gambling act fight it? Did it bring it on in the first place? The same can be asked about the criticism it now receives: Has the Gambling Act asked for this? Could it have avoided it in its efforts to organize the industry?
Online gambling is clearly one of the largest businesses on the web. Even with legal restraints and government curbs, the industry is flourishing and the resources - gamblers, players, big and small - seem never to run out, only grow even more. While the focus is by and large on the US, European and other western markets, online gamblers and casinos operate in the rest of the world as well. In fact, they operate sometimes against the laws in certain countries. Such was the case with an organization, active in China, where online gambling is illegal. The group, 32 members of which were arrested and charged with involvement in illegal online gambling, is said to have operated a business worth billions of yuan. Even at the currency rate of about 8:1, the sum comes out to about 773 million dollars. Ringleaders, currently suspect principal offenders, Yang Xu and Wang Jun, have still not had charges pressed against them, as is the case with eight others. The two, Yang Xu and Wang Jun, are a married couple who supposedly started the business in 2005, first as a small group of online gamblers, then obviously growing considerably greater. The gang itself numbered 100 people two years after starting. The Chinese police released the following statement: "The prevalence of online gambling has ruined the online environment and harmed young people's growth, which runs against the policy of building a harmonious society." With nearly 6 billion yuan passing hands, there are enough Chinese who would challenge this statement. But that is, as Yang and Wang can tell us, illegal.
We did not make up the phrase "Patent Trolls." We are not those to label 1st Technologies as such either. Nor will we post a hideous, black and white photo of two men and say the one on the left is Dr. Scott W. Lewis and the other either his dad or brother. The flamboyant founder of sports betting and gambling company Bodog, Calvin Ayre, has done all this. Ayre has done even more: following the legal mess his company has run into, which resulted in losing the rights to the Bodog domain name and trademark to 1st Technologies, as well as an order to pay $49 million in damages to the suing company, Bodog has reached a brand licensing agreement with Kahnawake-based Morris Mohawk Gaming Group. The deal was announced by Bodog in a press release dated September 6, 2007. How exactly this will help Bodog in its operations and marketing in North America is yet unclear, but it does not stop Ayre from hyping the move in his statements, both in style and in content. The legal procedure has already confiscated the domain names. It seems as if they can be recovered only by further litigation. Such a move would possibly shed some light on the entire argument and the exit strategy, as many information-thirsty industry people hope for. At the moment, the case is cast in fog. The Partner Noted First Nations leader Alwyn Morris is the head of the Kahnawake-based Morris Mohawk company. His life story is at elast as interesting as his new partner's, Ayre's story. Morris is a double Olympic medal winner in kayaking. At the 1984 medal ceremony he famously held up his ancestors' symbolic eagle feather, promoting ever since the cause and pride of Canada's Aboriginal peoples. His involvement in online gambling could help conservatives label him as a negative element. Morris, however, has worked with youth in the Health and Welfare Canada Native Drug Abuse Program, and has even won Canada's highest civilian honor. The Partnership Ayres and Morris have come out with excited statements. The former added a somewhat crude blog post as well, with the mock photo of 1st Technologies' Lewis. In his blog, Ayre attacks 1st Technology in strong, language. He even justifies the new partnership by describing the Mohawks as not "known for backing down from a fight," as if a fight is what is ahead. In fact, he invokes Mohawk history, saying Lewis would not fare well if he takes on "head to head with... a Mohawk whose ancestors scalped 56 Americans during the Battle of Beaver Dams." Lewis is even described as a Patent Troll, a term for a bottom feeder who lives off stealing other people's patents. Morris in turn has responded with a more civil response, saying: "Our deal with Bodog is another great addition to the business community that has developed in Kahnawake. Working with the top brand in the industry will further solidify the extensive experience, knowledge base and importance of this vertical." What next? A renewed legal discussion will provide more information and possibly more outrageous statements from Ayre. We will surely wait for that. Raising the stakes, in new business partnerships and no less dramatic in rhetoric, the fight will surely have additional rounds and can be sure we will stay put to watch.
In the beginning there was chaos. Alright, maybe not entire chaos, but an unruly industry, where anybody could set up a gambling website and everybody could gamble freely. This had to change for a number of reasons, including: Countries were losing business and tax income by having the gambling sites operate from overseas Governments lost the ability to control underage and other problematic forms of gambling Lack of a global, overreaching policy allowed some states to block casinos from other states, thus create an unequal competition But the industry seems to be reshaping once more. With the Americans banning gambling on the web and the Brits embracing the industry altogether, there might be competing policies in place, but surely someone is looking at the long term implications of the industry. Face it - it's not going to pack up and disappear from our lives overnight, if ever. In the midst are countries like France. Concerned about protecting French businesses and French gamblers, aware that the US policy is a failed one and a member of the EU and its trade agreements, the French must face reality and get their hands dirty with policymaking. Conservative or liberal as they may be, it seems that the French will follow a realistic and pragmatic path. This means... that the French may be ready to soften their stance on online gambling. Good news? Perhaps. But what are we expected to witness in the upcoming negotiations between French government representatives and EU officials this week in Brussels? The EU will ask that the French allow online gambling businesses, located in Europe, to serve its people. This will hurt the current monopolistic operations in the country. In return, the French will seek some protection for its own websites. To keep some tax revenues in country, the French will also ask tat any operator serving the French will have to open shop also in the country. Concerning what aspects of gambling will be discussed and conceded on, the French might try and limit it, at least at the moment, to sports gambling only, leaving poker and other games off the table. Sure. It won't be easy. These are issues that are at the heart of the matter and large interests are invested in them. But at least the sides are meeting to talk. See you in Brussels.
The UK Gambling Commission, operating under the newly revised Gambling Act 2005, which went into effect earlier this month, has solicited a thorough study, defined as an effort to illuminate the current state and measure all future changes in its light. The study, titled, Gambling Prevalence Study, is set to be released tomorrow, on September 19. The study is indeed highly anticipated. Earlier this month, some findings were leaked to the media, which had to do with the size of the English gambling market and paid due attention to the issue of problem gambling. The latter may turn out to be a large chapter in the study, with the Gambling Commission possibly viewing its goal as combating the problem. Earlier leaked data suggests that the number of UK citizens, 16 years of age and above, who gambled online counts in the many millions; 33 million in fact. Of them, problem gamblers count a full million, an alarming number, especially when compared to the previous study, conducted 8 years ago in 1999, which found 300,000 problem gamblers in England. With each of the million or so consistent gamblers spending 1,000 pounds on average, the UK industry is one of the largest in Europe and in the world. This is a clear enticement for the UK government to try and draw the site operators to the UK from their current offshore locations. These seem to be the two goals of the Gambling act, the Gambling Commission and the Gambling Prevalence Study: regulate the industry while bringing casinos over from their current whereabouts, and combating problem gambling. The two might end up competing for attention, as the study findings may become the subject of polar views, conservatives hijacking the debate on the one hand and liberals on the other. What will be of the public debate is uncertain. What is clear is that more such studies will be released. One was supposedly solicited for the year 2010, much sooner tat the previous wait of nearly a decade from the previous study.
An official report released by the UK government on Wednesday reports that the number of people who regularly gamble online is 3.5 million. While this number represents a considerable increase compared to past (and long outdated) surveys, the number of problem gamblers seems to have remained still, at about 250,000. The newly founded regulatory body, the Gambling Commission, which operates under the recently enacted Gambling Act, is behind the survey. The numbers are designed to grant the Commission the general picture of the current gambling culture in the UK and to measure any effect the new policy from now on. The Numbers The Gambling Prevalence Study, the official name of the study that surveyed 9,003 people aged 16 and over, was carried between September 2006 and March 2007. The quarter million problem gamblers account for 0.6 percent of the adult population. This figure is the same as it was back in 1999, the last time a similarly comprehensive survey was launched. But as the number of people gambling has dropped over the years, in comparison to the larger population and in spite of the greater availability of online casinos, from 72 percent of the population to 68 percent since 1999, problem gamblers now account for about 7 percent of the gambling community. The National Lottery is still the most popular form of gambling, at 57 percent of those questioned. Only 6 percent of those questioned used the internet to do so. Comparing men and women always makes for fascinating trivia. The study finds that men are more likely to gamble than women, with 71 percent compared to 65. As for the problem gamblers, their profile is also described in the numbers. They are most likely to be male, single and in poor health. Interestingly enough, they are likely to have a parent with a gambling problem. Problem gamblers usually engage in spread betting, at 14.7 percent, fixed odds betting terminals (11.2) and betting exchanges (9.8). Compared to other countries, problem gambling in the UK is at the level of Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland, and not as high as it is in the US, Australia, South Africa, Singapore and Hong Kong. Still, Britain can look at Norway for an example of how to keep problem gambling at even lower rates. Policy Adjustments To reach the Norwegian standard, or simply to bring the number of problem gamblers down, the government is considering revising its policy, which currently has gambling companies making voluntary contributions towards fighting the problem. Instead, it might make them pay a compulsory "addict tax." Sports and Culture Minister Gerry Sutcliffe said: "The gambling industry has a responsibility to make the right level of funding available to treat those who are harmed by its products." The Critics A case in point was made by some when they said that the survey comes two years too late. The Act, now already in force, could itself have been designed in light of these figures. Instead, the findings are basis for comparison, not much more. Other criticism of the Act calls out the British regulations and enforcement efforts to be lacking, as more general, continent-wide measures must be applied to effectively control the industry and the advertisements that reach the British on television. Regarding the negative attitude of gamblers, the survey has some general attitudes that show the average view to be against a ban on gambling, even though it might be more negative than positive. Reactions While news broadcasts start with such statements as "Gambling addiction is not on the rise," the picture is more complex and the following responses gathered from industry insiders and policy makers illustrate. The top of the list of responses is saved for the Prime Minister, or rather his spokesperson. Mr. Brown's spokesman pointed out that problem gambling may still affect only a small minority of people, but stated it remains a concern. Mr. Geoffrey Goldbold of Gamcare, a charity that helps problem gamblers and often takes the opposition side of the gambling debate, has even said "We're Gamcare extremely pleased" with the numbers, and that the "industry should be congratulated." Mr. Goldbold stated that still, there is a need to take care of those that do have a problem. Mr. John Greenway of the responsibility in Gambling Trust has expressed his opinion that the figure of problem gamblers, though stable, is still too high. His organization will work with the Gambling Commission and others in fighting the problem and helping the addicts. In fact, this is a positive effect of the Act, it is agreed by many, that gamblers will have easy access and be supplied the necessary information on gambling sites that will direct them to such organizations that may help them with their problem. Mr. Gareth Wallace of the Evangelical Alliance said much the same, only presented the challenge that now faces the Gambling Commission, to see if the Act indeed helps bring the number of problem gamblers down. The final word is left to the Gambling Commission chairman, Mr. Peter Dean, who in honesty admitted to being pleasantly surprised as he expected a big increase in the number of problem gamblers. We all are.
As if to light up the problem in gambling on the day that the Gambling Commission has released the standard survey of the state of the industry, 39 year old John Reilly killed himself as his debt, from gambling on the Internet, reached £100,000 and led him astray. The headmaster at the Sandilands Community Primary in Wythenshawe, Manchester had already lost ownership of his £250,000 home. He would not follow on please by family and friends to seek help. Eventually he hung himself from a tree in a park in Manchester Gambling has propelled the deteriorating personal life of Mr. Reilly, as he was living with his partner and their two sons, moving from their home to another after the debt was out of control. He was then asked to leave his partner and his sons, and moved in with a young woman teacher at his school. The lesson, beyond the tragedy of the loss, is to seek help. The Gambling Act, which will surely be brought in when discussing the story, may help such people as Mr. Reilly with greater awareness and less embarrassment related to gambling. In the meanwhile, other comments are being made as well. One to speak and be quoted is coroner Nigel Meadows who said "This is an illustration of how gambling in our society is as dangerous as drugs and can lead to traumatic relationship and family breakdown." Obviously an instinctive response, Mr. Meadows is also right. He adds a request from the public, saying that "if anyone has a loved one in a similar position, I would encourage them to seek help."
Three initialisms are on every American gambler's mind these days. In fact, they are on every gambler's mind anywhere, as they ought to be. UIGEA, iMEGA and TRO. While the first, which stands for Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, has been around for about a full year, introducing the ongoing ban on online gambling, the second, which stands for Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association, is a more recent group that is taking legal measures in trying to combat the ban. Recently, iMEGA has requested a Temporary Restraining Order, (TRO, the third initials) in a lawsuit filed to the court. The lawsuit was filed in July against the United States Department of Justice. On the table - Americans' first amendment rights. These days, on several occasions, the USDJ is expected to provide its response to the lawsuit. Meanwhile the ban was extended and the law remains in effect. The original response filled 46 pages, claiming several points, which are expected to serve also as the defense line in the upcoming September 26 court date at the New Jersey District Court. On this date both sides will appear in front of Honorable Judge Mary L. Cooper and give their oral defense. The points that will be made by the government are the following: The plaintiff, the USDJ claims, lacks standing to challenge the UIGEA under the first amendment, namely because it has not suffered personal losses and cannot base standing on rank speculation about the economic losses of third parties. Furthermore, the UIGEA is not, so claims the USDJ, a content-based restriction of speech, therefore is not under scrutiny under the first amendment. As no member of iMEGA is currently being persecuted, the case is unripe, premature and irrelevant. As for the challenge currently being taken in the courts of the World Trade Organization, with Antigua challenging the protectionist policy by the US, the defense claims that the plaintiff simply lacks standing to challenge any alleged inconsistencies with the WTO decision. Even if the case be dismissed by the court, it might become relevant in the future. Though no one expects the ground to shake when the case comes to the court again this week, September 26 might be remembered as a landmark in the fight to bring online gambling back to Americans.
Blackjack
Slots
Roulette
Baccarat
Craps
Poker
