Fight UIGEA!! -- Action plan for week of 3/26

Found a link at last.

The relevant passage: "Antigua is considering retaliatory moves that could enable the tiny nation to punch above its weight. There's no appetite for slapping trade sanctions on US goods; that would hurt Antiguan companies and consumers far more than Americans. Instead, the country may refuse to enforce American patents and trademarks. This would make it possible for Antiguan-based companies to produce knock-offs of American intellectual property, like video and music recordings or computer software. Such a tactic would get the attention of major US firms like Microsoft Corp. and entertainment titan Time Warner Inc. It would also put tiny Antigua's trade war against the United States on front pages around the world."

> .. a private consortium who wanted to set up a youtube-style video
> sharing site from Antigua. They figure that even if Antigua doesn't
> formally retaliate against the US it is unlikely to bother to
> police their content effectively.

I think you made the right decision not to invest. Hopefully Antigua will soon grow up beyond it's 25 years and see it better to not become the economic Jake Sparrow of it's day. Are they flying the Skull and Crossbones down there yet?

> I read about it (trademark piracy) in the Times (of London).

I looked for it also and I find it quizzical that they are the only source mentioning that possibility .. besides you. I read Antigua's WTO fight site also (hurriedly) and found no mention.

> As I recall Antigua would need WTO approval for this and need to
> make a formal application, and obviously it is questionable whether
> they would want to risk provoking the US by doing this

It wasn't so obviously questionable a post or two ago when trying to convince me Antigua had options other than a trade embargo. Monkeys could fly out my butt, but let's try and stick to real world possible actions and reactions.

And further .. "risk provoking the US." Why does it have to come down to this. Does the concept of a Soveriegn Nation based on the rule of law have any meaning left? We have citizens living in jurisdictions within this country that believes 'gambling' tears down the fabric of the society they want to live in. Dosen't matter if you or I agree, they have that right and the majority therein vote that way. On some level the Federal government has an obligation to see that those states rights are not violated (I know, I know, except when they don't, and except when they are being duplictious. Geez.) My state will not let me gamble, except with the Native Americans which is not such a good bargain, so, what? I can deal with it, I can try to change it, or I can move to Nevada. What I hope I don't have to tolerate is the great Soveriegn Nation of Antigua sailing in to my state forcing my people to swallow it whole becasue a couple of us want to sit in front of five monitors all day with poker bots and HUDs.

> even if this became legal under international law.

Again, if 'international law' (spawned by less people than those attending most any decent Division I football game on a given Saturday) can start superceeding state and local law in the United States, the on-line gaming issue is not our biggest concern.

Have a good weekend. I'll spend mine scanning the horizon keeping watch for that approaching black flag. :)

I looked for it also and I find it quizzical that they are the only source mentioning that possibility .. besides you.

Most of the English broadsheets published the story, there are at least half a dozen sources. But there's little to actually report as yet.

And further .. "risk provoking the US." Why does it have to come down to this. Does the concept of a Soveriegn Nation based on the rule of law have any meaning left?

The notion of fair trade does violate national sovereignity. Do you think the fact that Antigua is "forced" to respect US patents and trademarks violates their national sovereignity? I don't think so. The system is there to protect everyone, and IMHO protects American interests disproportionately. As I said, the architect and power beyond the global fair trade system is the US. It can hardly complain when those institutions come up with a ruling it doesn't like. Ultimately if you don't like it, quit the WTO, but you'll damage your own economy seriously.

If you are against free trade I suggest you join your local socialist party. The main American parties have been preaching about fair trade and pushing their economic advisors on everyone (with a spectacular lack of success one might add, look at what happened in Russia under Yeltsin). I find it deeply ironic Americans are now complaining about those policies they have foisted on everyone else.

You likely subscribe to the BJ21 Newsletter, but if not, the latest edition features a quite comprehensive article from Information Week magazine:

The title is: Gambling gone wild: U.S. crackdown sparks offshore boom. You can access the article from the Newsletter; the direct URL for the article is

http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=198700819

DB

> If you are against free trade ...

You continue to call it free trade; I'll continue to call it a global economic shakedown. Probably enough is enough.

Regarding your 'jurisdictional' comments, my neighbor is looking for a good offshore child pornography web-site that's affordable. No real hurting of kids you understand .. just pictures. One that will accept his debit card. Can you help? The local authorities here have a dim view of things like this. They can be so intolerant of our freedom sometimes. I'm really surprised some crack-ass state sponsored company isn't before the WTO right now crying foul. Apparently the fellas at NAMBLA really think they are being treated unfairly.

I was glad to see Dickey Bets 'Information Week' article. Selfishly of course, I took a couple of things from it.

First, reagrding if the writing was on the wall or not, Daniel Negraneau apparently saw it, as did Crytologic.

Second, like I've been saying ..

"After efforts by the DOJ to put a lid on it, it will be highly regulated and controlled, and handled with integrity. No one can realistically put a lid on it. The economic case is too compelling." -from the article

.. as soon as we can figure out how to tax it, it won't be a problem and Antigua will be back in business. Of course the opportunity will be a little more watered down by then, but hey, that's capitalism.

And I imagine that process will include allowing local law to prevail when the local folk are against it. Hopefully that will be good enough for Antigua. I'd hate to see Utah being brought up in chains before the WTO. If Maverick lives there, he might have to relocate out of state. Life's a bitch sometimes, no?

that we Americans have to rely on little countries like Antigua and organizations like the WTA to protect our rights when the Republican Party decides to shove it's entire head up the ass of otherwise crooked evangelical hypocrites.

The U.S. joined the WTO voluntarily and without making stipulations for states' rights. We were plenty happy with their decisions when they pleased us. Now, however, we think our B&M casinos require protectionism so we erected trade barriers. I don't see a shakedown myself. If the U.S. doesn't want gambling, we should outlaw all gambling, including the government-run lotteries. If the U.S. wants gambling, we have to decide if we want protectionist walls. If we do, we should quit the WTO. If we merely want states' rights to be preserved, we may wish to think ahead before entering into organizations like the WTO.

Regarding your 'jurisdictional' comments, my neighbor is looking for a good offshore child pornography web-site that's affordable. No real hurting of kids you understand .. just pictures. One that will accept his debit card. Can you help? The local authorities here have a dim view of things like this. They can be so intolerant of our freedom sometimes. I'm really surprised some crack-ass state sponsored company isn't before the WTO right now crying foul. Apparently the fellas at NAMBLA really think they are being treated unfairly.

This would be an accurate analogy if the US had a thriving legal child pornography industry it was trying to protect against the interests of foreign paedophile websites. It does not.

The WTO is meant to consider whether a given policy might be justified on grounds other than free trade. The massive availability of gambling in the US in this case shows clearly that there are no other grounds-the UIGEA and its antecedents are purely protectionist.

And I imagine that process will include allowing local law to prevail when the local folk are against it.

Well, yes, you have the germ of a good point there. I think if a state's inhabitants wish to vote against the practice of gambling, both online and off, then they should be allowed to pass laws representing that through their state legislature. But that is an issue which will come up some years in the future.

What I don't think is fair, is a state like Nevada prohibiting online gambling. You would have a hard time persuading me they lose much sleep at night over the dangers of compulsive gambling.

Thank you again for posting the link. I have not understood this case very well. I had gone to the WTO sites before, but the documents there were very lengthy and I did not have a chance to study them,
The link you provided was very helpful. That article suggests that the scope of the ruling is rather narrow: it applies only to horse-racing over the internet ? For the reason that gaming on horseracing over the Net is legal in this country. Some excerpts:

In 2004, Antigua won a sweeping victory that would have required the United States to abandon virtually all restrictions on overseas Internet gambling companies. On appeal, the scope of the ruling was substantially reduced.

The US Trade Representative's Office hailed the ruling as a victory. ''The appellate body has affirmed that WTO members can protect the public from organized crime and other dangers associated with Internet gambling," said Peter F. Allgeier, the acting US trade representative, last April. Repeated efforts to reach the agency this week were unsuccessful.

But the World Trade Organization still found that the United States could not forbid all forms of offshore Internet gambling. Despite strong opposition from the Justice Department, Congress in 2000 passed a law that permits Internet horse-race gambling in states that allow wagering on horses. And the World Trade Organization held that the United States could not prohibit Antigua from offering such services to American gamblers if they can be legally provided by US firms.

The logic of this seems clear to me. Internet horse betting is legal within this country, so it is simply protectionist to prevent foreign companies from participating.

I would think that the US could fix this problem by simply outlawing domestic internet horse-betting. Given the strong support that the anti-Internet gaming has in Congress, I would think this would be quite possible. That is, the net effect of this ruling could be to reduce the extent to which Internet gaming is allowed in this country.

If you are talking about poker, the American fish are out of the game while the American sharks remain. If a venture is highly profitable people will find a way to continue regardless of its legality or amount of red tape. If people are only casual participants they will not go to a great deal of trouble. So the games are tougher.

It seems to me that by implication this would lead to a precedent of like-for-like that would translate to offline and online casino games. That seems to be the way the legal experts are interpreting it. Further cases may need to be resolved to confirm that, so you probably have a good point in that the narrowing of the ruling could be used to at least postpone any further developments.
The Engineer's more recent news may supercede this, I haven't had time to digest that. And I am obviously not an expert on international gambling law anyway.
I'll see if Nelson Rose, one of my co-writers at Casino City Times, can shed some light on this. Unfortunately even his opinion (he is reckoned to be foremost expert on online gambling law) can only shed so much on these highly ambiguous rulings.

>> And I imagine that process will include allowing local law to prevail when the local folk are against it.

> Well, yes, you have the germ of a good point there. I think if a
> state's inhabitants wish to vote against the practice of gambling,
> both online and off, then they should be allowed ..

Why? Why should a state, within the confines of the greater United States, get a pass? I'm surprised you would feel this way. Trade restrictions are trade restrictions be they coming from Washington or Oklahoma City.

---------

I also hope your seamen are returned from Iran sooner rather than later and that they are not harmed in the process.

>> It seems to me that by implication this would lead to a precedent of like-for-like ..

As learned as you two gentlemen are, we are all probably over our head legally, but some issues seem more clear once outside the courthouse.

Why should wagering on horses on-line begat unlimited wagering on anything else on-line?

Seems to me the simpler US response, and the fairer WTO order, would be to allow global on-line wagering on our ponies, and global on-line play of our lotteries, and stop at that. Tit for tat. It's all good. Antiguan's rejoice.

But again, it's economic pirates in a Trojan horse.

The US reposnse to this has been laughable but the WTO order is unsupportable, in my opinion.

Why? Why should a state, within the confines of the greater United States, get a pass? I'm surprised you would feel this way. Trade restrictions are trade restrictions be they coming from Washington or Oklahoma City.

I don't think trade restrictions are trade restrictions if they are enacted for some other purpose, and the WTO basically shares this view. People shouldn't be forced to accept online gambling if they don't want it. The issue here is that some states, I mentioned Nevada but there are many others, want to have their cake and eat it: they want to keep all the tax money from domestic gambling whilst forbidding international outfits from profiting. It is the double-standard at issue.
On a related note, I think the US case would be much stronger if they argued offshore gambling was not properly regulated like domestic gambling. But they haven't done that, they have really just shown contempt for the whole process.

It may be that the WTO eventually decides that, as is the case in Britain and that I have argued generally, a wager is governed by the jurisdiction in which it is accepted. Following that logic, it would simply be no business of the state legislatures whether people chose to gamble online or not.
However, and my view on this is partially based on your comments, I think it would be wise tactically to make an exception on cultural grounds here owing to the importance of the state legislatures in the US constitution, something which is not neccessarily well understood abroad. Apart from anything else this would just cause resentment and damage the institutions supporting free trade in general.

But I think it is the nuclear option or nothing: no gambling or restricted gambling. Otherwise it is just too easy to cloak protectionism under the guise of concern about the potential social evils of online gambling.

Either way, this obviously isn't down to me.

I also hope your seamen are returned from Iran sooner rather than later and that they are not harmed in the process.

Thankyou, so do I.

> I don't see a shakedown myself.

Good enough; we just disagree.

> The U.S. joined the WTO voluntarily .. we were plenty happy with their decisions when they pleased us.

True enough, as most here now seem pleased since the current decisions are serving to protect your limited interests. That's human nature.

> Now, however, we think our B&M casinos require protectionism ..
> If the U.S. doesn't want gambling, we should outlaw all gambling ..
> If the U.S. wants gambling, we have to decide if we want protectionist walls.
> If we do, we should quit the WTO.
> If we merely want states' rights to be preserved ..

Suffice it to say I think all the above is a little simplistic. Probably no more simplistic than some of my thoughts however.

I don't think BM gambling necessarily = lotteries = horse racing = unlimited on-line wagering. The WTO in supporting poor little Antigua does. What can I say? I think they are shaking us down.

Of the cuff .....

At the end of the day, seems to me the only logical end point is the whole world gets reduced to the smallest economic common denominator of lifestyle and quality of life. I'm not sure I want to compete economically with a guy making widgets who is happy to live in a mud-hut. I know this sounds callous and unkind, it well may be, but I like having hot and cold running water that's affordable.

Don't you? If so, I think letting (IMO) dubious actions like this prevail is heading us down that road. And if I'm right, getting your way now, in this issue, has done more harm than good.

Some here say it's an issue of 'my rights!' I think that is really simplistic.

Thoughts appreciated.

Take care.

Your wording reminds me of the dark post-war-period.
If something is un-American here, it's to support a banana state against the democratic ruling of American lawmakers.
I don't think that the ban on internet gambling can be considered as protectionist.By the way, in my country (Switzerland)it's also forbidden. The reason is that there is no means of control.Compulsive gamblers will be ripped off and many folks will get cheated.
Apart from that,protectionism is not necessarily bad.For example, it would be foolish not to protect ones agriculture. Who is gonna feed the population in times of war?

Francis Salmon

> If something is un-American here, it's to support a banana state against the democratic ruling of American lawmakers.

Of course for the US citizen generally, and in this case the US advantage player specifically, it's about getting our way and defending our 'personal freedoms' while tossing the greater good to the side. In this case, it's not about being un-American, it's about embracing the currently convienent New World Order.

"I want to gamble on-line and I want to do it now!"

There are a bunch of banana states floating around out there that are just waiting to get a piece of the USA and the WTO seems willing to let them.

Curiously, one argument, one 'solution' being made here by the APs is for the US to then do away with ALL gambling .. lotteries, sports betting, casinos, etc. No one really want's that and it's just plain silly. To let the great state of Antigua bully you into that type of thinking is embarrassing .. and un-American.