Gaming issue in SL- a solution?

They did? Gee does that mean SL no longer exist's? Because SL is a GAMBLE!

I vehemently objected to the LindeX being opened in the first place, because, to me, it seemed like LL was entering into an arena where they were going to compete with their residents in selling L$ instead of just profiting off our successes. Over time, I came to respect that by having it open LL has a vested interest in making sure that L$ retains value, which is of benefit to residents that sell them.

I won't bore you with my math... but to me it seems LL's monthly revenues are:
US$500k from direct L$ sales,
US$250k from Lindex Fees,
US$800k from just Premium Membership fees.
(tier fees may account for > US$2mil btw)

They'd have to give up paying stipends as well as closing the LindeX of course, which would undoubtedly lose them *several* premium accounts.

So, you want them to kiss off around third of their of monthly revenue just so we can keep gambling in SecondLife? Are you crazy? That ain't never gonna happen.

They might lose a fifth of their monthly revenue without gambling, for a while. That's apparently an acceptable loss to them.

I am not disagreeing with your analysis,, but can you please tell me your formulas for those numbers?

Thanks, Ramo

As someone from the UK, I find this entire situation totally mystifying. I genuinely cannot understand how anyone can say that sticking a few lindens into a Slingo pot is more damaging (to what, while we're asking ... character?) than shooting someone with a gun. And I am equating this to both SL and RL. Do not even TRY to tell me that gambling is more harmful - GUNS KILL GAMBLERS. You cannot argue with that, so don't even bother to try.

I paid my Internet bill (and some) with what I made from playing Extreme Demons This is purely because of the skill element involved. However small, it exists. I do not see myself as a gambler. I don't play any casino games, I don't even go to casinos. As it happens, I don't like casinos. I do, however, enjoy playing games and chatting with friends. They are two totally different things. I can still play games based n skill, but I cannot play my favourite game anymore.

If someone wants to gamble away their life savings, that's their choice. Nobody is forcing them to do it. They hurt no one but themselves. If they shoot someone, however, they hurt the person they shoot and everyone who knows and cares about them. Yet guns are still allowed in Second Life. They are illegal where I live and I find them totally offensive, not to mention barbaric and mediaeval. Yet because LL is American, we have to accept it. We can't play games that are legal here, but we can shoot people even though in RL it's illegal for us to do so. It makes no sense whatsoever.

How can it possibly be wrong to sit on a seat and play a harmless game whilst chatting to your friends and having fun? How can that be more harmful than wearing an animal costume and buggering a pretend child? How can it be more harmful than sticking a gun into someone's head and blowing their brains out? Which of these three would you choose to ban if you had the choice? What about in RL? The latter two are allowed on SL, the former isn't. Don't tell me that's common sense or progress or anything else. It's just plain lunacy.

I don't prefess to understand the economic issues involved here, I'm not an economist. All I know is that a lot of people are very sad and very lonely, not because they can't gamble anymore, but because they can't share a common interest with their friends. To take that away is little short of inhuman. SL provided a worthwhile service with things like Extreme Demons and now it's taken it away. But hey, what does that matter? We can just shoot each other instead.

What in the world are you talking about? Yes, if someone came to the real life house of a person playing Second Life and shot them with a gun... that would be bad. Worse than say, gambling.

Um... so what? What is your point?

This is good article to help anyone interested in the global history of SL. It is lengthy, but insightful and can help you understand why the impact of the gaming ban in SL has such an impact on the economy. btw the article was written well before the ban on gaming.

The person who wrote it is obviously an insider, but not a Linden I don't think.

http://gwynethllewelyn.net/article163visual1layout1.html

US$500k from direct L$ sales:

---> From: http://secondlife.com/whatis/economy_stats.php
---> "L$ Sources & Sinks: Supply Linden Sales" = L$159,074,702
---> ~L$160mil @ 265L:1US = US$500k
---> (result rounded down, was closer to US$600k)

US$250k from Lindex Fees,

---> From: http://secondlife.com/whatis/economy-market.php
---> 30 days times (3.5% of ~L$60mil per day avg @ 265L:US1) = US$250k
---> (result rounded up, was closer to US$237k)

US$800k from just Premium Membership fees.

---> From: http://secondlife.com/whatis/economy_stats.php (again)
---> "Stipends" L$172,717,300
---> old members get L$500 a week, new get L$300 a week, guessing L$400 a week avg.
---> 4.5ish weeks a month, avg premium stipend per month: L$1800
---> L$172mil / L$1800 = nearly 100k premium accts.
---> Premium accounts can be US$9.95 a month or US$6.25($75 over 12mo), avg US$8
---> 100k premium accounts @ US$8 per month = US$800k

(tier fees may account for > US$2mil btw)

---> from memory... there are roughly 9000 regions?
---> Cheapest region is $195 per month, some $295 per month, some mainland sims with many small owners could pull in up to $640 per region (65536sqm / 512sqm * US$5 for first tier).
---> I arbitrarily picked $225 as an average revenue per sim, (went low because premium fees count for 512sqm of tier and that revenue was included in the previous revenue point)
---> 9,000 sims * US$225 = US$2mil

Anyway, if I'm off by a decimal point anywhere, please let me know.

The URLs presented here are not the UIGEA, they are to the 2007 bill which would in effect repeal the UIGEA in favor of regulation and taxation.

http://gwynethllewelyn.net/article163visual1layout1.html#more-163

awesome article !!!!!!!! I was not here from the beginning but saw all these changes.
Kudos to Gwyneth too. Great insight and full of historical facts about sL.

I'm from the UK as well Julie and I posted something similar to your comments on another thread, regarding using PayPal to buy Lindens to access RL hardcore porn via SL.

I cannot agree more with your post but sadly the majority of folks in SL are American and they just dont see it our way. Just you wait for the abusive comments to start...they will.

As far as Uncle Sam is concerned gambling is evil...and shooting people or pretending to abuse children is perfectly acceptable...and until someone manages to change the mindset of the uneducated...SL will remain gambling free, but loaded with dubious porn!

Um, wasn't age-play banned before gambling?

Personally, I wish they'd lighten up on the online gambling and, instead, they should hunt down televangelists.

Shooting people however... well, hard to run a war without that. Gotta have war to keep people for... oh whatever that reason is.

Again, my apologies (post #32) for the errors contained in the analysis. At the time of writing, I was also involved in research on the Barny Frank Bill of 2007. I was up 24 hrs by the time I wrote it and inadvertently transposed that information from one to the other. It was sent out to others and posted by Ramo here in the forum before I realized the error.

As you pointed out, the UIGEA is not the Barny Frank Bill and was actually introduced by Representative Daniel Lundgren in 2006. The correct link to read the UIGEA is here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./temp/~c1091Kdxn3::



The new legislation does not effectively repeal anything -
The Barny Frank Bill of 2007 is being called a repeal bill, when in fact it is not. Barny Frank's claim that his bill will create an exemption to the ban on online gambling is simply not true. There is no ban on online gambling and the UIGEA did NOT ban online gambling. It only made it illegal to FUND illegal gambling. (note there is no certainty by anyone what exactly is illegal in the online arena at this time).

If you read the bill, the word repeal does not appear a single time. It does not take 26 pages to repeal a bill and this one is just being tacked onto the end of the UIGEA. It doesn't repeal anything and is additional legislation that will put more restrictions on the industry.

This is a typical political ploy. They call it something it isn't and get you to vote for it based on what they call it. That doesn't mean it IS what they call it. This additional legislation is designed purely to correct the UIGEA's inadequacies that are being challenged in the courts already.

This is a good example of how politicians scam us. First, the UIGEA did not receive a formal vote in the entire Congress so they tacked it onto an unrelated Port Safety Bill, hoping no one would read it (which they didn't or it wouldn't have passed.) There was no debate over it and it was submitted 15 minutes prior to the vote, so the chance anyone COULD read it were slim. The Port Safety Bill was sure to pass at that point since most of the Senators had already cast their vote and left. As expected the Port Safety Bill was unanimously approved in the Senate. Once it passed and they scared the beejeezus out of everyone by going after the big online processing companies, they now offer us another and call it a "repeal" to calm our fears. It should send up all kinds of red flags because this bill will effectively remove all competition from the market and place sole power over the industry in the hands of one single US Government Agency - giving ONE person the power to enforce the regulations - The Director of Financial Crimes and Enforcement.


For those interested in further discussion or education on the laws regarding internet
gambling, this is a good article along with sources below: Is Online Poker Legal?
http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/



The following material and speculation was used in writing Is Online Poker Legal?:

World Trade Organization ruling that US online gaming ban is illegal (PDF file)
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/285abr_e.pdf


Bloomberg News reports on the original WTO ruling
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2004/nov/10/517802938.html


London Times and Las Vegas Sun on the Appellate Body upholding original finding
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article378405.ece
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2005/apr/07/518567096.html


Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act analysis by Nelson Rose
http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/internet/


Jay Cohen Article by the Associated Press
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2002/jun/21/062110471.html


Is it a Crime to Play Poker Online? by Nelson Rose
http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/columns/159_internet_poker_long.htm


The Future Legal Landscape for Internet Gambling by Nelson Rose
http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/antigua.html


Understanding the Law of Internet Gambling by Nelson Rose
http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/internet_gambling.html


Busted For Betting Online? by Nelson Rose
http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/columns/144_I_G_Illegal.htm


Gambling Law US United States gambling laws (Find text of gambling laws for every state)
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/


Internet Gambling in Nevada by Jeffrey Rodefer, Nevada Attorney General's office
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/


Justice Department's Position on Online Gambling (6/98 but good background)
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/kvd0698.htm


United States Gaming Agencies Listings of the gaming agencies for each US state
http://www.gaming-gambling.com/united-states/


Judge Duval's In Re: MasterCard ruling
http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/mastercard.html


US Court of Appeals ruling affirming Judge Duval's ruling
http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/appeals.html

Noone knows why Gaming was really banned....I have read their new Gaming Law over and over...there really is no clear reasons. Maybe all the focus on the "LAW' is what they want?
Could it be something else and thats the reason for no feedback from Linden Labs?

What about the servers being clogged with so many transactions and we all know how long everyones been screaming for server updates. Failed money events were nonstop...and Im sure with voice being introduced on the main grid and the upcoming features will cause even more stress on the servers. So without those money transactions, the servers will perform a little more stable so new features can be introduced without the cost of upgrading?

If it was exactly what everyone is saying about 'why' the ban took place...I would think we would have some feedback from Linden Labs...but there's nothing but silence, which leads me to believe it was for a totally different reason that they don't want us to know about.

Maybe I'm totally off based but all I do know is THERE IS SOMETHING WE ARE NOT TOLD.

As usual "special interest" groups that funded some politicians made sure a nice soup of bills were "linked" in order to pass this.

"The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was rammed through Congress by the Republican leadership in the final minutes before the election period recess. According to Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), no one on the Senate-House Conference Committee had even seen the final language of the bill. The bill was attached to a port security bill, the "Safe Port Act," which was politically impossible to oppose" source: http://casinogambling.about.com/b/a/256607.htm

The largerst casinos in usa are left completely untouched. Heres an excelent coverage on who got paid by whom and who will benefit from this bill and from the removal of potential competition from sl-casinos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9QaxqfszfU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xgOq6ORm8


"Competition is a sin. " - John D. Rockefeller

Maybe repeal was the wrong word, but doesn't the new bill make funding legal again, as long as the US gets it's cut through regulation and taxation? Could be wrong as I was never good at understanding the wording of these bills, but that is what I got out of it.

I imagine you will see internet sires return legally. Taxed and regulated. And run by Harrah's, Wynn, MGM/Mirage etc. Their won't be any competittion for them allowed I bet.

I hope some can take the time to read Gisela's post. Gisela is on the forefront of this issue.

I, Ramo, just think it is wrong to get me to sign up with a premium account, tell me I can do whatever I want to do with the intellectual property I create, or pay for and use.

I do not believe the US gambling laws belong in a virtual world that encompasses users from all over the world.

I DO think that gaming using $L is completely legal. I started this thread proposing a solution to LL with the help of Gisela. (Gisela originally wrote the well thought out proposal to LL).

I also think that the people who used SL to wager $L among themselves and other players have been unfairly trod upon by this sudden ban. How can LL say that it is perfectly within the TOS, but then suddenly make an arbitrary decision to ban a perfectly legal activity,,, i.e. buying an selling $L on a game of chance?

I just don't see how anyone could reasonably say that LL is 'funding' gambling.

so whatever the reason SL has to ban games of numbers and chance, lets help them allow it. Nobody wants to go underground. Can you imagine being raided by the SL police?

I wouldn't worry about it. The lag would give you plenty of time to slip out the back door.

Your position in the FBI or other law enforcement agency, or your lawyer license, gives you great credibility in your "belief" on this subject.

As someone said before here, I think LL is in a better position to judge their liability than you are.

LL could try hosting the whole grid from an raft floating somewhere in international waters... but the bandwidth would suck.

I am not asking you nor am I showing you any credentials I may or may not have. I am only stating my opinion on the issue.

That is what I was of thought (or my crediblity as a street mongrel is in question?), made posting this thread worthwhile.

Until someone can logically prove me wrong that gambling with $L in SL is against the law, I will continue to believe that it is not.

Whether my credibility is in question or not is completely unrelated to this discussion. For all you know I could be a raving lunatic that panhandles for a living.

NOW IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, NACK, THAT IS PERTINANT TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND, PLEASE SPEAK. IF NOT, THEN SHUT UP AND LEARN.

In fact i believe (yes, Nack... that means its MY OPINION), that most of the regular users of SL would be of the opinion that gambling SHOULD be allowed in SL. The citations are in this thread somewhere to read up on many articles and laws about internet gambling. And, if you can't find them here, then there is always various search engines you may be familiar with. I hear one is very popular and comprehensive, (but again, i'm not really qualified to say so Nack).

So I propose just a small vote. Just here amongst us. the paying users. the adults. the people that LL told us in the TOS ....

Linden Lab generally does not regulate the content of communications between users or users' interactions with the Service. As a result, Linden Lab has very limited control, if any, over the quality, safety, morality, legality, truthfulness or accuracy of various aspects of the Service.

AND

1.3 Content available in the Service may be provided by users of the Service, rather than by Linden Lab. Linden Lab and other parties have rights in their respective content, which you agree to respect.

AND
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.

AND

Users of the Service can create Content on Linden Lab's servers in various forms. Linden Lab acknowledges and agrees that, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, you will retain any and all applicable copyright and other intellectual property rights with respect to any Content you create using the Service, to the extent you have such rights under applicable law.


the TOS, is found at this link,, and if this is a bad link, it is easy to find.

http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php


All I am saying in my OPINON Dack, is that LL should live up to the agreement they made when they published the TOS.

and no, i am not qualified do offer a legal opinion. however i do believe that there are others out there who are.

I want to help LL. I LOVE SL. and i don't want to see it fail. SO help with this,, whether you belive it is right or wrong. Lets help LL.

flame me all you want, but its my OPINION.

Ramo-

Don't neglect the bit of the ToS that warns that any part of the service or ToS may change at anytime, without much notice, and is considered binding and accepted by the customer should they continue to use the service. blah blah blah.


If I took a gun and shot someone in the head several times, it is murder.

If I give someone else a gun, and pay them to shoot someone in the head several times... it's still murder.

If I put cash on a spot on a roulette table in Vegas, it's gambling.

If I buy L$, and my avatar puts them on a spot on a virtual roulette table in SecondLife, with the understanding that I might win more L$ which I could sell off to someone later, it's still 'gambling', at least semantically, if not legally.

Of course, I still think of buying L$ and hoping they'll increase in value as 'gambling' as well... but I'm crazy that way.

Legally in RL, adult, paying customers don't get to decide. That's up to the lawyers, judges and law enforcement to make a case for or against.

Legally in SL, Linden Lab has declared it illegal. Period. Their world, their perogative.

Whether RL law forced or pursuaded LL to ban gambling is between "The Law" and "LL", we can bark until our jaws fall off it is obviously something that is done, and unlikely to be undone.

We've 'learned' your 'opinion'. Time for you to learn that your opinion is one of many and counts as little as the rest of ours

I think our opinions count a lot more than that Rusty.

If our opinions as the users and paying members of the "Thingie" or so unimportant than we really are idiots for sticking around. I hope that's not the case.

I made the snarky comment mostly in response to the line quoted below... which made me chuckle, considering there wasn't much offered to learn from except opinions.

Honestly though, LL gets it from so many sides and so many people that they'd have to staff up and abandon doing anything else just to seriously listen to a fraction of the feedback they get. At some point they HAVE to ignore us as individuals and treat us as a collective entity of dissenting opinions. Or they'd get nothing else done.