Extradition treaties between countries (such as Canada and the US) require that the activity in question be illegal in both countries. It is expressly legal (written and everything!) for a Canadian company to provide services to an out-of-country gambling operation so long as said operation is legal in its own jurisdiction. This is why you find so many Canadian outfits who provide peripheral services to offshore gaming businesses.
kidslick said:
Not exactly. Pokerstars.net takes you to a free poker site. The idea behind it is that people will either eventually make their way to the .com version, or will remember only the 'pokerstars' portion of the ad, and type the .com version into the address bar. Very effective marketing strategy that gets around the legalities of advertising a gambling outfit.
The RX is based out of Canada. It's not their fault people from America punch in their URL. (and there is nothing wrong with this to begin with.) They don't control what Bos does. They just agree to run an ad from them. This is a site that provides info. I have no idea how anyone could think they could even be remotely close to hot water.DAWOOFDADDY said:
The federal government has never arrested anyone for taking ads.
The Sportingnews was a unique case - no one knows the details of the case because it was settled before it even became a case. It was kind of like the DOJ called up Paul Allen and said we need $7M to make this go away. It would not surprise me if someone inside the sportingnews was acting as an agent or taking bets (I have no idea) but it makes no sense that the DOJ took on one publishing company out of thousands. It is also unlikely that Paul ponied up $7M without as much as an appeal if he did not see wrongdoing as well...
Companies like Google and Yahoo advertised sportsbooks far more blatantly than thesportingnews yet never received a fine or indictment. The letter they received even went so far as to say you MAY be aiding and abetting meaning the DOJ does not even know if a court would uphold it.
The fact that companies that were taking far more ad revenues from sportsbooks did not get fined and the fact that Paul settled almost overnight makes me think more was going on.
In the BOS case, it is abundantly clear that the advertisers in FL were taking bets. Part of the indictment says that in addition to shipping flyers, they shipped laptops from Miami to St Louis. Either they wanted a really interactive flyer or they were helping BOS set up wagering stations around the U.S.
ESPN takes ads, maxim takes ads, I believe Playboy takes ads, Trader Mag takes ads, I believe the NYT and most newspapers have taken ads. IF the DOJ wanted to take down advertising, therx would not top the list (Sorry rx we love you, but the NYT and ESPN have you beat!)
I took down my site a little bit for fear of legal problems, but mostly because I was meeting with a venture capital firm about another business and they did not want it up.
Saying that you can not advertise a sportbook online which is legal to 90% of the world is like saying you can not advertise a resort that provides hookers or a bar that provides drugs in a country where these things are legal. I do not think that is a battle the DOJ wants to take on. The DOJ got what they wanted - yahoo and aol and google backed down. Google and yahoo are 90% of the internets searches. If the DOJ were to take this on, it would go to court and a judge would have to decide if this is constitutional free speech. IF the DOJ lost, google and yahoo would have gambling ads back online in 10 minutes.
-Sean
The Sportingnews was a unique case - no one knows the details of the case because it was settled before it even became a case. It was kind of like the DOJ called up Paul Allen and said we need $7M to make this go away. It would not surprise me if someone inside the sportingnews was acting as an agent or taking bets (I have no idea) but it makes no sense that the DOJ took on one publishing company out of thousands. It is also unlikely that Paul ponied up $7M without as much as an appeal if he did not see wrongdoing as well...
Companies like Google and Yahoo advertised sportsbooks far more blatantly than thesportingnews yet never received a fine or indictment. The letter they received even went so far as to say you MAY be aiding and abetting meaning the DOJ does not even know if a court would uphold it.
The fact that companies that were taking far more ad revenues from sportsbooks did not get fined and the fact that Paul settled almost overnight makes me think more was going on.
In the BOS case, it is abundantly clear that the advertisers in FL were taking bets. Part of the indictment says that in addition to shipping flyers, they shipped laptops from Miami to St Louis. Either they wanted a really interactive flyer or they were helping BOS set up wagering stations around the U.S.
ESPN takes ads, maxim takes ads, I believe Playboy takes ads, Trader Mag takes ads, I believe the NYT and most newspapers have taken ads. IF the DOJ wanted to take down advertising, therx would not top the list (Sorry rx we love you, but the NYT and ESPN have you beat!)
I took down my site a little bit for fear of legal problems, but mostly because I was meeting with a venture capital firm about another business and they did not want it up.
Saying that you can not advertise a sportbook online which is legal to 90% of the world is like saying you can not advertise a resort that provides hookers or a bar that provides drugs in a country where these things are legal. I do not think that is a battle the DOJ wants to take on. The DOJ got what they wanted - yahoo and aol and google backed down. Google and yahoo are 90% of the internets searches. If the DOJ were to take this on, it would go to court and a judge would have to decide if this is constitutional free speech. IF the DOJ lost, google and yahoo would have gambling ads back online in 10 minutes.
-Sean
Also for a long time sites like partypoker.net linked to partypoker.com . Some companies like ESPN balked at this.
Thus they took away the link. According to PP's ad manager based on their estimates based on when they run ads, over 50% of people who see partypoker.net on espn still type in partypoker.com by accident.
Thus they took away the link. According to PP's ad manager based on their estimates based on when they run ads, over 50% of people who see partypoker.net on espn still type in partypoker.com by accident.
If sex.net is a nice porn site, but sex.com is full of kiddy porn and Playboy takes an ad from sex.net you can not arrest playboy because someone with a similar name owns sex.com.
It is likely companies like PP have separate corporations that own the .net names... I'm sure the lawyers made a few bucks on these set ups...
-Sean
It is likely companies like PP have separate corporations that own the .net names... I'm sure the lawyers made a few bucks on these set ups...
-Sean
Sean, since you apparently know every fucking thing about this and there is nothing to worry about, why dont you send your entire roll to whatever books are offering the most bonus?
Feds dont seem to matter, DOJ doesnt seem to matter.....all is OK as far as you are concerned.
For the past few months, you have known it all.......all anyone else here needs to do is read your posts and they will be an instant expert in all areas.
:toast:
Feds dont seem to matter, DOJ doesnt seem to matter.....all is OK as far as you are concerned.
For the past few months, you have known it all.......all anyone else here needs to do is read your posts and they will be an instant expert in all areas.
:toast:
I did not say that no CEOs would decide to come here and I did not say other countries definitely would not extradite. I said I would wait and see.
Additionally, I am not big on baseball. If things are still unstable at the end of August, I will reassess risk.
Additionally, I believe I can make more money investing in stocks (These very stocks) now than gambling a month or two.
-sean
Additionally, I am not big on baseball. If things are still unstable at the end of August, I will reassess risk.
Additionally, I believe I can make more money investing in stocks (These very stocks) now than gambling a month or two.
-sean
Therx has about as much likelihood of being attacked while in Canada as we have that the sun will not come up tomorrow. That being said, it could happen. I'd be more worried about crossing the street than the feds going after advertising media in other countries.
Could it happen - yes.
Is it likely - if you feel it is, dont start a site.
-Sean
Could it happen - yes.
Is it likely - if you feel it is, dont start a site.
-Sean
Thats a rather silly response, since you may as well as said its impossible, although anyone reading/watching whats been happening would know different.
Anyway, I hope this site maintains itself. However, the heat seems to be more than many people realize...otherwise why did RX take down the BoS/Millenium banner(s) & why did BoDog cancel their Las Vegas offshore gambling conference?
Apparently you have all the answers.
Anyway, I hope this site maintains itself. However, the heat seems to be more than many people realize...otherwise why did RX take down the BoS/Millenium banner(s) & why did BoDog cancel their Las Vegas offshore gambling conference?
Apparently you have all the answers.
