Anyone Attending the Protest!!!!

The protections in the law that Gootube exploits don't apply in this case.



How do you know how meekly and "pathetically" they folded? This ban has been HOW long coming now?




I think you mean "legally required to".



While you might think getting your assets seized by the FBI is a good way to show customer loyalty, that, also, does not look good to potential investors.

Stuff I like is cool. Stuff you like sucks.

C'mon, I'm used to a higher standard of debate amongst SL-ers. This is like talking to a Beavis and Butthead-themed chatbot.

Where it is illeagel to win money it is not illeagel to pay to play a game of chance for prizes, other wise there would be no chucky cheese or fair's. so they can still pay to gamble to win prizes other then money. Then there is nothing illeagel about selling anything you wish to in sl or they would also have to close down all the shops. Therefor playing a game of chance for prizes then sell them and walla you have money LOL silly silly people

It would help if we knew which American law was being broken, because nobody seems to know. There's lots of talk of online gambling, which isn't illegal in the US, but even Robin Linden couldn't tell me.

So I'd imagine they've been advised they might be breaking the law, maybe they don't want to admit they are breaking the law because that might mean they're admitting they've been breaking it for a long time.

Doesn't matter that the content is user generated, the bettors aren't the ones facing the punishment. LL is the one accepting payment from the "bank".

"Section 5363 contains the basic prohibition of the new law. It bans online gambling operators from accepting most forms of funds to be used by the players to gamble on their Websites. The ban applies to:

"1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on behalf of such other person (including credit extended through the use of a credit card);
"2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted by or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of such other person;
"3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is drawn by or on behalf of such other person and is drawn on or payable at or through any financial institution; or
"4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction, as the Secretary [of the Treasury] and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may jointly prescribe by regulation, which involves a financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on be half of or for the benefit of such other person."

Criminal Penalties
Section 5366 imposes criminal penalties for accepting funds banned under Section 5363. The penalties include fines and jail time of up to 5 years. They also permit a court to enter permanent injunctions barring convicted violators from "making bets or wager or sending, receiving, or inviting information assisting in the placing of bet or wagers.""

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/internet-gambling-ban.htm

While there are surely content creators who really want to make L$s, and hence actually give a cr*p about the SL economy, it ain't a universal. There's plenty to do and plenty of ways to create without having to spend many L$s, and there are plenty of creators who are in it for the fun, whether or not they make back tier. What this means is not only that a "crash" wouldn't be all that tragic, but also that there's a great deal of elasticity: as long as there's some worthwhile content being created, there's a built-in "floor" beneath which the economy can't fall.

Besides, a 50% drop in land prices wouldn't even get back to where they were a year ago. A substantial correction could be a very positive thing for SL (if not for LL). But in fact, I personally don't expect the gambling ban to impact the economy as negatively as one might wish.

when I read this - it really seems to me Linden Labs wont be very lenient as far as Borderline "Games" involving prizes.

Excluded from the definition of "bet" are:

*
various business transactions like securities and commodities trading and insurance policies
*
participation in online games with no pay-to-play aspect and where the prizes are limited to free play of various games

The biggest and most recent law in question is a tacked on bit of nonsense to the Safe Port Act that prevents banks from conducting transactions with online gambling sites. The danger here is that LL is afraid of being declared an Online Gambling Site if they permit online gambling knowingly.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/


Wire Act of 1961
Travel Act of 1961
Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act of 1961
Illegal Gambling Business Act of 1970
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970
Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992
Interstate Wagering Amendment of 1994
Amendment to Interstate Horseracing Act
Illegal Money Transmitting Business Act of 1992
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act 2006

I'm not familiar with most of those, but as of 2002, the ruling on the Wire Act is that it only applies to wagering on sports events.

Probably why they included that in the ban. And yes, I am sure they could have acted sooner instead of waiting till now. Did anybody possibly take into consideration they were looking into a way to keep gambling on SL? And that is why it took so long?

First, let's make this clear, the current fuss about Internet Gambling is based on the passage of the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act). This has been passed but it is not yet law. The courts may throw it out because it is extremely badly written and has a ton of potential loopholes that may lead to legal challenges. It may be challenged by an additional bill (Barney Frank is preparing new legislation). There is also pressure being put on the US by little Antigua through the World Trade Organization, and rumblings in Europe.

So, the best any one can say, not matter how authoritative, is that Internet Gambling *may* become illegal. How exactly this would apply to the creators of a virtual world who simply *allow* people to offer gambling services is any one's guess. Their is no specific provision for services like SL in UIGEA or other legislation. You really have to wait for the test case.

There are several dozen state laws which already exist and prohibit internet gambling explicitly or otherwise. That is a legal minefield I won't get into.

pretty good point

We dont know all the behind the scenes stuff, and probably never will.

My guess is things got to the point where their lawyer(s) told them now was a good time to ban it ..

"The new law, therefore, only applies to online gambling operators who violate other existing state or federal anti-gambling laws. Some commentators on this aspect of the Act conclude that since there are only a handful of states that expressly ban Internet gambling, this law has not accomplished very much.



The better view is that all of the online gambling sportsbooks, casinos and cardrooms violate existing anti-gambling laws of every one of the fifty states. This is because:

*

The gambling is legally deemed to take place simultaneously at both ends of the Internet connection.
*

Under applicable state laws these interactive online gambling Websites are deemed to be doing business in the states in which the players are located when they make a bet.
*

The general anti-gambling laws of every state criminalize the operation of unlicensed gambling like the sportsbooks, casinos and cardrooms that are covered by the new law.

Thus, this professional form of unlicensed gambling appears to be illegal whether or not the state has adopted a specific Internet anti-gambling law.

"The new law did not amend, update or otherwise change the Wire Wager Act. This has been seized on by some commentators to reach the conclusion that operating an online casino or cardroom has not been criminalized. That view is irrelevant and a non sequitur. The new law is specifically applicable to all operators of online sportsbooks, casinos and cardrooms who accept bets and wagers in violation of any applicable state or federal anti-gambling law. It provides more severe criminal penalties than currently provided under the Wire Wager Act. Therefore, the new law is to be feared as much or more than the Wire Wager Act."

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/internet-gambling-ban.htm

The "better view" is your opinion. It is a plausible one, but it is one of many, and the courts rarely take such a simplistic view of things.

I agree with you here. As much as I'd liked to have seen them give a better warning. Something to the effect of all casino games must be removed within 2 months... I think this is just LL trying to follow the law and prevent losing SL altogether, and not them taking away rights "just because" like they did with first land and lowered stipends.

That wasn't my opinion. I assume it came from :

Chuck Humphrey began practicing law in 1968. He was a partner in the national firm of Kirkland & Ellis when, in 1986, he became one of the two founding partners of Addoms & Humphrey, a Business Development Company that assisted in structuring and financing new ventures.

In 1999 he became the principal investor in and one of the founders of the Tournament of Champions of Poker and of Team Pegasus, an association of professional tournament poker players.

He is admitted to practice law in Colorado, Michigan and Texas, currently being active in Colorado, where he lives. He was a staff attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. early in his legal career.

Chuck continues his law practice, which principally focuses on business matters, including gambling law, structuring transactions, and securities and venture capital law.



Since it is his website I took it from.

This I believe (and I'm guessing here but it's the most logical point to me) is the sticky point. All gambling in SL was unlicensced. I think they thought they were exempt because the L$ apparently has no value but I believe now they don't believe that is a workaround.

Yeah pretty hard to claim the L$ has no value and at the same time advertize SL with stuff like "Earn Real Money"

and "US dollars pent in the last 24 hours"

Lol is there camping there?

They are still at it...

*spits root beer out the nose* C'mon people. your protesting against a linden lab decision. when is the last time we got them to change their minds? Especially against a real life illegality?

Meh, I just made an alt with one of the new surnames and went to check out public Orientation island and ran into a bunch of them protesters. They were...discussing lobster cooking and some of them just spammed the chat with things such as mmmmmmmmmmmmm or hhhhhhmmmmmmmm and some such.....VERY sophisticated. AND they were scaring the newbies away.

What real life illegality?