Internet Gambling NOW Illegal

Dont you just hate it when they butt in ?

There you are sitting in a bar chatting and up pops "bible man"

They wonder why some people are against religion !

Ahh. So, hypothetically, the US passes this law. Then it's illegal in the US to gamble on the internet. So do we go after the gambling places in the US? Hmmm. Seems this one over here is catoring to French People. Is it an illegal US gambling facility if it's used by the French? Is it illegal in France to gamble online?

By extension, you catch a bunch of Americans gambling online. The site is in China. Will the US be able to shut down the Chinese gambling site?

How in your gods' name do you enforce this law, should it become so?

Ricky, Canada may behave one way, but in the good ole' U.S. of A, don't assume anything when it comes to the government, especially the IRS. There is currently no official statement from the IRS on virtual currency. Therefore, it is presumptious to assume the U.S. government would consider it to be anything more than Monopoly money.

For a particularly interesting read on this topic (in the context of another online game), see http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/feature_dibbell_janfeb06.msp.

I think you're misunderstanding how a brokerage works. You example of an insurance agent is very different from how an financial services brokerage works. In the former case, the insurance agent is dealing with a highly illiquid over-the-counter situation and directly matching counterparties for a one-off transaction. In the latter case (of which LindeX is an example), the retail client is transacting directly with the brokerage (i.e. *they* are the counterparty) which acts as a clearinghouse for trades, matching orders in their own book.

So, if I call E*Trade and ask for a market purchase of 500 shares of IBM, E*Trade is my counterparty. They may match my order with another of their clients who wants to sell 500 shares of IBM, but each of us is dealing only with E*Trade. In no way have a entered into a contract with Joe Seller.

Similarly, when I make a purchase on LindeX, I pay LL. They then transfer L$ into my account. In their own book keeping system, they will also check their clearing house and execute any waiting limit sell orders. The other client will also be dealing only with LL.

It's more complex than this anyway since different STATES have different laws.

Internationally, it's more a case of where the service is hosted from. International Gaming Laws are a tricky little beast at the best of times but presumably if online gambling becomes definitely illegal in California then that has a decided effect on SL as the servers are based in San Francisco.

Meh. Personally I don't much care about this regulation when I am playing SL because I never go to Casinos anyway.

PS Bible man - what was the point of your post? Yes you have your beliefs but a) you don't automatically have the right to shove them in our faces and b) what was with the huge blank space afterwards.

That was just plain bad manners.

That was an interesting article. I'd also be willing to bet that if Julian took the time to write his private ruling letter, the IRS would consider virtual currency transactions (at least those in SL, where a regulated, company-run currency exchange exists and users are encouraged to make real money off their own IP) taxable as barter income, regardless of whether it is converted to cash or not.

My personaly feeling is that a situation like SL is significantly different from other online games in that users are in fact trading their own IP amongst themselves, using L$ as an intermediary. The IP has value, therefore the intermediate proxy is representative of value and is taxable as such. Like I said, I'd be shocked if the IRS ruled otherwise when someone finally decides to put the question before them.

Apparently god said a lot of things, for instance -

In Exodus 33:20, says God, "Thou canst not see my face; for there shall be no man see me and live." God must have been mistaken, or changed: For in Genesis 32:30 Jacob sees God "face to face" and lives. The same for Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and 70 elders, who saw God, and ate and drank with him (Exodus 24:9-11). But not so, says First John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time."

James 1:17 says God has "no variableness..." but then, in Jonah 3:10, God "repented" and changed his mind about smiting Nineveh's people. So what are we to think of assurances given in Numbers 23:19, which states, "God is not a man...neither the son of man, that he should repent." Yet this tireless omnipotent God himself volunteers the striking thought in Jeremiah 15:6, "I am weary with repenting."

In Genesis 1:20 & 21, "every living creature" is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl." But in 2:19 God brings forth "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" from dry ground.
In Genesis 1:2, earth comes into existence on the first day, completely underwater. Only by the 3rd day were waters of the deep collected, and dry land formed. But in Genesis 2:4, 5, & 6, earth on the first day was dry land, unwatered.
The first story has trees made on the 3rd day and man formed 3 days later (1:12-13 and 26-31). In the second version man was made before trees (2:7, 9). If chapter 1 is true, then fowls were created before man. If chapter 2 is true, then they were created after man.
Version one teaches man was created after all beasts. The second is clear, Adam was created before beasts. (1:25,27 versus 2:7,19).
In version one, man and woman are created simultaneously (1:27) while in version two (2:7,20-22), man and woman are separate acts of creation

Indeed there are hundred more contradictions - as with all religeons - but remember these are veiws of what people say god told them - they may be misrepresented/interpretated/translated or even plain wrong in the first place - the bible is a good book and does show a way of living for the good - but dont take it as the be all and end all

do beleive your beleifs - do live a good life - dont press it on others something that even the writers couldnt agree on

------------

in reply to baystreet

That seemed to be Julian's guess as well, which is why he didn't write it. But, sssshhh, don't say you'd bet anything, especially online, as it may soon incriminate you.

1.4 Second Life "currency" is a limited license right available for purchase or free distribution at Linden Lab's discretion, and is not redeemable for monetary value from Linden Lab.

You acknowledge that the Service presently includes a component of in-world fictional currency ("Currency" or "Linden Dollars" or "L$", which constitutes a limited license right to use a feature of our product when, as, and if allowed by Linden Lab. Linden Lab may charge fees for the right to use Linden Dollars, or may distribute Linden Dollars without charge, in its sole discretion. Regardless of terminology used, Linden Dollars represent a limited license right governed solely under the terms of this Agreement, and are not redeemable for any sum of money or monetary value from Linden Lab at any time. You agree that Linden Lab has the absolute right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Currency as it sees fit in its sole discretion, and that Linden Lab will have no liability to you based on its exercise of such right.

--------------------

reread the first line of the second paragraph - fictional currency

this makes sl transactions as nontax deductable and/or covered b y the gambling law

unless all of you that play monopoly - or indeed any game that collects and swaps/'sells' fake currency (including tokens) would like to pay the goverment for getting that MB games(tm) box out at xmas

Yes, yes, we've all read that part of the TOS. But as I've said before, just because something is in the TOS doesn't make it true. And believe it or not, but if the government disagrees with the Second Life TOS and decides L$ *do* have value (I mean, come on, SL's entire marketing plan revolves around making real money, LL actively hosts an official L$<->USD currency exchange, and derives revenue from the trading for cryin' out loud!), well, the government wins.

[deleted spam]

its sure been a good day for putting assholes on ignore in the forums.

And were suposed to be a free country yet most other countrys don't care about such minor things. :/ *gets a passport* >.> jk ;p


Not that i like to gamble, i don't do it. But i wouldnt take away someones right to do it if they like it.