Governmental Interference

The Netherlands Bankers Association (NVB) have told Dutch Justice Minister Hirsch Ballin that the current legislative plan to ban online gambling by using Dutch financial institutions as internet police is simply impractical and, in fact, probably illegal.

The Justice Ministry immediately dismissed the sound advice of the NVB.

"Justice bases itself on Dutch law in fighting illegal internet gaming and there is no room for free choice on the side of the banks.”

.
Don't you just love the phrase: "There is no room for free choice." Ain't democracy great!

The governmental spokesperson went even futher, by distancing the Netherlands from the ongoing European Union Commission actions on internet gaming, when he said:

"European law has no influence on this."

.
The Ministry did, however, admit that this reaction from the NVB would delay any legislation currently under consideration.

“The comments made in the consultation phase, as well as other events which took place in the first half of 2008, have led me to further re-examine the Dutch system. I refer to the Senate’s rejection of the bill regulating online gambling, the EC’s Reasoned Opinion, and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State and the Supreme Court. I have come to the conclusion that the policy needs adaptation on a number of issues, not just to increase support therefore, but also to ensure consistency and coherence with European law.”

Sounds like another social moralist is finding it hard to legislate how a free individual conducts their private life.

Dutch officials might do well to observe the regulatory mess the United States has gotten itself into by trying to enforce social policy through its banking system. The U.S. legislation remains unenforceable a full two years after its passage.

There was a lot of noise last week when the present United States Administration appeared to finally put some actual regulations behind the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act. On further examination though it appears that nothing may have changed. For one thing, the "new" regulations still say nothing about what is and what is not "unlawful internet gaming". Those definitions seem to be left to either local jurisdictions or to the banks and financial institutions who must bear the brunt of the UIGEA.

Second, the new regulations are now in a comment period and will not be a compliance burden on financial institution until December 1, 2009. This leaves plenty of time for the new administration and a friendly Congress to kill the law, even on grounds of it being "overly vague" or a "regulatory burden on the financial institutions" involved. There is actually no need for any agency to actually address the issue of unlawful internet gaming.

It was and remains a poorly written piece of legislation, which in all likelihood is unenforceable on its face. It was a good scare tactic but it also mobilized the poker industry, which should have positive consequences for poker players in the long term.

The European Union, on the other hand, seems drawing ever closer to actually making some kind of decision on internet gaming policy. Unfortunately, in this case, it would seem that the individual nations involved in the EU dispute seem to be gaining support for local rather than EU control. While the public arguments are centered on moral and social customs about gambling within varying cultures; the truth is more like that some countries are making a huge amount of money via their private gambling fiefdoms and they don't want to share. Remember we are not talking about taxation or regulatory fees, like we are in the U.S. No, the European Union members are after the rake from gaming sites. In the EU, some countries want to be your book maker. Maybe we can replace volunteer armies with just those citizens who are behind on their gambling debts.

The EU position is that gaming is an industry just like wine and cheese and automobiles. The countries who have staked out a private gaming website do not want to relinquish their income stream, so they argue that gambling is a moral question. Right now in the EU, it appears that the decision making scale may be tipping to the side of moral greed and away from an open markets policy.

Now that the dust has cleared on the federal elections in the United States, what does the new political line-up in Washington D.C. mean for online poker?

First, the news is mostly good. The democrats will have increased majority is both houses of congress as well as President Obama in the white house. Democrats are generally more favorable to a regulation of online gaming as opposed to a prohibition. Additionally, almost no one wants to put excess regulatory burden on the financial system during the present economic crisis, which is exactly what the draconian provisions of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act attempted to do.

Second, the various congressional committees that dealt with the various potential regulations of the internet and commerce are all in the hands of committee chairmen, who favor online gaming. Also several of those committee will be gaining new members, who politically will be expected to follow the party line on more liberal and open internet gaming politics.

So, what to expect:

-unless the old administration acts before January 20th to get out policies and guidelines based on the two year old UIGEA; expect such rules to never see the light of day under the new administration.
-expect several bills to hit the new congress early in 2009 with slow but steady progress through the cumbersome approval process.
-breakthroughs in trade policy negotiation on online poker with both the European Union and other jurisdictions, like Antigua.

Will it happen soon? No.

Will it happen? Yes, definitely yes.

When the new more open U.S. government takes over next year, there is every belief that their national prohibitionist position on online gaming will at some point be reversed. Eventually the U.S. will regulate the online poker industry for U.S. players.

Let me suggest that this will make similar decisions in all parts of the world much more difficult. Let's take Sweden's Svenska Spel gaming monopoly for example. Despite EU pressure Svenska Spel and other national owned and operated gaming monopolies continue to both operate and exclude other online sites from operating within certain geographic boundaries.

There are advantages to government run sites. A uniform, non-English language is often used. Social and moral concerns are addressed within the strictures of a unique cultural set. And the government makes a lot of money on the rake.

But here comes the not too distant crisis of conscience and of pocket book. As far as online poker, the U.S. constitutes the largest revenue stream and dollar for dollar, euro for euro, lira for lira, peso for peso; the Americans gamble for more cash then any other nation on the net. This, of course, has to do with multiple factors of disposable income, as well as high speed internet penetration.

The problem? Do you want to keep these American gamblers out of your market, when they could substantially increase your revenue by inviting them in?

Well no, you say, bring them in to our website.

Here is the problem that all nations will face in the new unfolding open online marketplace. Countries, like the US, will ban your site, if you ban their sites. So Svenska Spel will have to let their citizens out, if they let others in. This will be a hard decision for some national gaming monopolies but the change in the U.S. law will also make the overall EU decision easier. The monster revenue potential of opening to the United States market will be just too much to ignore. What will break down trade barriers is not thoughtful regulation but the specter of lost profits.

The European Parliament's Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee will meet next week in Brussels to consider a draft report which seeks a European Parliament Resolution on 'the integrity of online gambling'. The report is clearly not favorable to online gaming and online poker. And although the report is not binding on future Commission action, the report reasserts all of the negatives used by opponents of online gaming and freedom of the internet. Once again we are to be protected from ourselves.

There is a separate political issue involved here that does not get much press and that is the EU Commission and the European Court of Justice are overwhelmed with gaming cases. Every country wants to assert it sovereign rights over gambling issues and every other country wants everyone else to honor those local and jingoistic regulations. Unfortunately, the EU was established, at least in part, to lower such lower tariffs and trade laws but with gambling there is the miasma of the moral and social order to be considered.

Rather than seek to revolve issues of regulation and fair business practices, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee has chosen to go with the reactionary position of prohibition.

"Member States have a legitimate interest in monitoring and regulating their gambling markets in order to protect consumers against addiction, fraud, money-laundering and fixed games as well as to protect the culturally-built funding structures which finance sports activities and other social causes," and "underlines that online gambling operators should comply with the legislation of the Member State in which they provide their services."

The report goes on site the nebulous fears of all prohibitionists:

"Online gambling is likely to give rise to risks to consumers and that Member States may therefore legitimately restrict the freedom to provide online gambling services in order to protect consumers."

Fortunately, the EU Parliament tends to act in the best interest of the whole of the EU populations, whereas the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee tends to put forward the interests of individual member states, many of which seek to retain their own national gaming monopolies.

Online gaming continues to be the single largest unresolved issue before the EU Commission with no real signs of any movement towards an open market solution at this time.

Reacting to a court ruling in the State of Kentucky, Microgaming has announced it will restrict (ban) access to all of its poker platforms from thirteen states in the U.S. Citing "laws already on the books but not being enforced" the blocks will go into effect "within the time period for the Kentucky ruling", which is now less than 30 days.

The states to be blocked are: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin, and Utah.

The gaming websites that run on the Microgaming platform are most notably: Doyles's Room, Gnuf and all Eurolinx affiliates.

Once again the various political entities in the U.S. are legislating at cross purposes much like the confederacy of the European Union. While the U.S. Federal government is moving to regulation, tax and control online poker; individual states are seeking to restrict internet access and control the hearts, minds and wallets of their citizens.

Another nation has moved to restrict citizens access to online gaming. Argentina has been added to the list of countries seeking to ban online gambling but at the very least it appears the Argentian proposals are aimed at eventual regulation and not an outright ban. However, the extremist measure to ban first and legislate regulations after is both harsh and contrary to keeping markets open and functioning, which would seem a reasonable goal for any government in these financially questionable times.

This is the second legislative proposal presented in Argentina aimed at disrupting the activities of online gaming companies, this proposal in the province of Santa Fe follows the similar move last week in Buenos Aires.

The latest bill includes penalties for local companies that do not block internet sites providing games of chance for money. Once again a government puts the burden of regulation onto private companies, just as the United States attempted to ban online gaming through banking regulations.

Fortunately, as mentioned, there are some sane voices in the Argentian debate:

“We understand that gambling is a part of social behaviour and increasingly popular online, but the fact that citizens in our province have access to this method of gambling does not mean that the State should refrain from exercising control over it."

The spokesman added that it was the responsibility of the state to guarantee that games are offered "only via legal channels" in order to be able to collect taxes for subsequent investment in social programs.

The federal elections in the United States are less than 45 days away. This is the time, once every four years, when elected officials actually listen to voters. If you are a poker player and you want the right to play poker online, then you need to take two minutes to go to the Poker Player Alliance website and fill out this form, which will be sent to your Congress person and both of your Senators. This is a new legislative notice, if you have written in the past, please do it again today. Might I suggest that you add a line or two at the beginning of the pre-packaged message. Here is what I wrote:

"This year, I am a single issue voter. You either fully support my right to play poker online or you are against me. No half-ass political double-speak. If you fully support the right of all Americans to do with their money and time whatever they see fit, then you have my vote. If you don't, then your opponent gets my vote. I wanted to keep it simple, so you understand. You are for us or against us and my vote will reflect your position. If I do not hear from you before the election or if you send some non-committal bullshit about further studies, I am voting for the other guy. I hope we are clear on this issue."

In a bureaucratic ruling worthy of only the paranoid dreams of Big Brother, the government paid for and appointed "save-us-from-ourselves" UK Advertising Standards Authority has banned a television advertisement by PKR which "glamorised the risks involved in gambling and implied it was possible to win against the odds".

The ad showed a computer-generated image of a poker room with a number of players seated around a poker table. The main "too glamorous" character makes a huge all in bet while the ad's voice-over states:

"I've come in over the top of pot-sized raises with middle pair. Bluffed under the gun with four runners behind me. Folded pocket kings on a hunch. I've survived bad beats, sick draws and cold decks. And I've played through fields of thousands to make the final table. Here I come."

.
To justify its censorship, the ASA said that the ad gave the impression that it was acceptable to take risks 'on a hunch' and implied that poker could be played in a reckless way. The ASA also specifically noted that the main character at the virtual table is shown laughing as he made his all in bet, and therefore the ASA concluded that the ad could be seen to glamorise the risks involved with gambling.

PKR has been told not to broadcast the ad again in its current form and in the future all representations of real or virtual individuals engaged in gambling activities should depict sad and angry demeanors.

"People playing poker should not be seen to be enjoying themselves."

If any EU member nation is going to be the "test case" for online gaming, it will be Sweden. Not only has Sweden been "out of compliance" with the standards of the EU Commission; the Swedish response has often been in the complete opposite direction of Commission mandates. The most recent report on the state of online gaming in Sweden remains a muddled mystery.

Gambling Intelligence Group reported that the current "investigation" will propose that Sweden introduce a licensing system for online sports betting providers. But "may not" recommend online poker be opened to competition or remain the government monopoly of Svenska Spel.

Reactions have been mixed to the early details of the report, which is now scheduled for a December release.

"This is a step in the right direction, but ultimately the way forward for Europe is not through a country by country licensing system, but a solution for the whole of Europe."

"This appears as a positive move, but I believe it is a big bluff to ease the pressure from Brussels. The EC-court has threatened Sweden with legal action and I believe these premature comments on the report are designed to lift that threat."

Sweden has repeatedly been accused of stalling, the longer it takes to resolve these issues, the longer the Swedish government collects revenues from their monopoly, Svenska Spel. The entire issue of member states with such monopolies as opposed to members with bans or restrictions on certain aspects of online gaming remains another area of murky mystery regulation.

Italy has become the latest country to legalize online poker. The country had new laws go in effect and on September 1st cash games began being played legally throughout the cyber-country. Of course, Italian players have been playing online for years but now players they will do so without having to worry about the government seeking hard drive evidence against them.

In fact, now that online poker is being regulated in the country, residents can now take comfort in knowing that companies who enter the market must be licensed. That means the Italian government will ensure customer protection against cheating or not getting paid. How this will be done is an interesting question yet to be clearly answered.

The average Italian card players, of which there may be as many as two million, has spent over 650 Euros a year playing poker online. That figure is sure to increase now that players no longer have to worry about the cyber-secret police.

The United States Republican Party and its current leader, President George Bush and its candidate for President, John McCain have attempted to pull a fast one on the U.S. poker players. First, in what appeared to be a response to the email barrage from the Poker Players Alliance, the party removed anti-online gaming language from the party platform. And they made a big deal about it to the media.

No so much noise when a few hours later they slipped this language back in to their party policy platform:

“Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support legislation prohibiting gambling over the Internet or in student athletics by student athletes who are participating in competitive sports.”

.
I guess all U.S. poker players now have a clear statement by the republicans about what they think of your right to play poker online. Now what are you going to do about it?

You may have heard that last fall Dubai World invested a lot of money ($2.96 billion) to purchase 50% of the MGM City Center project in Las Vegas. Dubai World also purchased 4.75% of the common stock in parent company MGM Grand. Early this year Dubai World increased its holding in MGM and now has announced another round of stock purchases that will bring them to a 20% stake in MGM.

Nothing wrong with this, just business. In fact, in the current economic climate in Las Vegas and in the banking industry as a whole; MGM might not have been able to raise the necessary construction funds to finish the huge City Center project. However, with a partner like Dubai World the project continues to move forward while other Las Vegas gaming projects are delayed, canceled or put on hold.

Here is the problem, because MGM operates in several of the states of the United States, each state's individual gaming commissions has the right to approve each and every move by MGM and Dubai World. Nevada requires that Dubai World have a Nevada gaming license after owning 10% of the stock or 10% of any individual property. New Jersey requires approval for each increase in stock holdings; so representatives of Dubai World and MGM have been in New Jersey recently to gain that state's approval for the move to a 20% ownership. Michigan, where MGM has one casino, approved Dubai World increasing its stake to 14.75% back in April and now will need to approve the move to 20% ownership.

So here is my question: If they are not unsavory characters at 4.75%, why would they be at 20%. Why do these commissions need to be involved more than once? Isn't this more of the bureaucratic red tape that hinders business? Yes, of course, there are costs for each successive approval.

I won't even go into my rant about the 27 European Union member nations trying to collectively get out of the way of free enterprise and internet gaming.

About Dubai World:
Dubai World is a major investment holding company with a portfolio of
businesses that includes DP World, Jafza, Nakheel, Dubai Drydocks, Maritime
City, Istithmar, Kerzner, One & Only, Atlantis, Barney's, Island Global
Yachting, Limitless, Inchcape Shipping Services, Tejari, Technopark and
Tamweel. The Dubai World Group has more than 50,000 employees in over 100
cities around the globe.
Dubai World's iconic real estate projects include the Nakheel's Palm
developments and The World. The group also has extensive real estate
investments in the US, the UK and South Africa, unique hospitality
destinations in every corner of the world, and is a leading global port
operator. In the last five years, Dubai World has developed 80,000 luxury
residential villas and apartments and approximately three million square
feet of retail space.

I hate spam and I would never solicit anyone to send spam but in this is really more like poker activism or perhaps simply Enlightened Governmental Expression.

The Republican Party in the U.S. has had this plank in their presidential platform for the last two elections.

"We support legislation prohibiting gambling over the Internet."

Now I know a lot of poker players who really want the government to get the hell out of our living rooms and our laptops but... they are not single issue voters and cannot bring themselves to vote for a democrat even though the republicans are against online poker. So there is a solution: TELL THEM!

The folks writing the 2008 republican party platform are soliciting input from voters and since email cannot be traced to a city, state or country... Everyone should feel free to let them know what you think on this issue.

It's easy, here's how to let them know you are watching:

* Go to this site to register.(you’ll receive an email with your password for the site).
* Click "Submit Text Entry" (at the top right) to submit a typed message.
* Write a short pro-poker message, choose a category, then click submit. It's that easy!

For any non-poker readers, there are lots of other topics to sound off about. I gave them a piece of my mind on stem cell research while I was there.

Two members of the European Union appear headed in opposite directions as far as regulating online poker. One country is considering abolishing existing restrictive legislation, while the other is preparing to regulate online poker for the first time.

The French appear ready to reconsider their online gambling monopoly perhaps due to pressure the European Union. France is reportedly reconsidering its policies regarding online gambling. French residents may soon get the chance to again play at a regulated online gambling sites.

French law currently states that online betting is not allowed. However, the European Commission of the EU is pressuring France to conform to the EU treaty regarding free competition with other member nations. Reliable sources have the new regulations allowing online betting on sporting events – including poker games.

Finland, on the other hand, currently does not regulate online poker but is now looking at this source of taxable income. Gambling in Finland is organized as a national monopoly, but online poker has yet to be managed by government agencies.

I widely circulated report found that Finns spend as much as 50 million Euros annually on foreign online poker sites. Finnish officials obviously feel they could or should keep a significant portion of that money within Finland and, of course, tax it. Their problem will be the same as so many other member nations have faced, the EU regulations.

The chief architect of the Internet gambling ban on Tuesday said he is losing patience with the Federal Reserve and the Department of Treasury as they struggle to craft regulations to enforce the ban.

Senator Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said the regulations are a year overdue, according to the 2006 prohibition statute. Kyle is quoted as mumbling:

"The longer it goes the less certainty there is. I mean, the people who are violating the law need to know that they're not going to be able the get away with it, and I think that the failure to get these regulations promulgated on time has perhaps given some hope, and it's given life even to an idea over in the House of Representatives to put a moratorium on the regulations."

Kyl was referring to a bill introduced April 11 by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. The Frank-Paul bill would block the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department from completing regulations to enforce the ban.

The legislation followed a financial services subcommittee hearing April 2 in which Federal Reserve and Treasury Department officials said the regulations are difficult to complete, partly because the 2006 ban does not define unlawful Internet gambling.

Louise Roseman, director of bank operations and payment systems for the Federal Reserve, also testified that the prohibition of Internet gambling cannot be "ironclad."

Another bill, which Frank introduced last year, would repeal the Internet gambling ban and require the Treasury Department to regulate Internet gambling in the United States .

Despite his frustration with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, Kyl said he is not worried about efforts to block the regulations and roll back the online wagering ban.

"I would be concerned if something like that were to be adopted by the House ... I'm not sure that the momentum is there to actually get it done."

Jay Lakin, vice president of Poker Source Online and an opponent of the Internet gambling ban, said he reluctantly agrees.

"While many efforts have been made on behalf of overturning (the ban), so far it's just been bills and words on paper," Lakin said. "Nothing has moved forward. Until there's a change in Washington , I don't think we'll see much of a change."

I am traveling today and at some hub airport out there somewhere I picked up a used copy of the International Edition of the Wall Street Journal and saw a full page ad about poker! The ad is linked to hearings today in Washington D.C. I am still traveling so I will give you what I have.

The ad was run by Prime Table Games, a Las Vegas company; the headline is Who Will Face the Issues? Here is a summary of the highights of the ad:

"It is well known that there are off-shore based Internet gaming operators who are engaged in deceptive practices with American consumers and international players, and there is no adequate system in place to ensure full and appropriate regulation," said Derek Webb, founder of Prime Table Games. "Congress needs to take action soon, or these practices will only get worse."

The House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology will be addressing issues involving Internet gaming on April 2 at 10 a.m. EDT. Prime Table Games' published statement encourages Congress to adopt specific regulatory strategies for consumer protection in Internet gaming.

These regulatory strategies include limitations on solicitations and incentives to gamble, such as bonuses and cash backs; prohibition of affiliate relationships; standard player verification procedures. Players also should be able to self-exclude from Internet gambling sites, and those requests should automatically apply to all sites.

In addition, Internet gambling debts should not be legally recoverable, and the site operator should bear the responsibility to ensure identity verification and that the player can afford to gamble at the level played. A player not paying gambling debts should automatically be placed on an exclusion list from all Internet gambling sites.

"Internet gaming, by its very nature, has great potential for abuse," said Webb. "Site operators also should pay fees towards problem gambling treatment and research."

We all know that the United States government has been making trade concessions right and left to compensate various countries to the ban on internet gaming imposed by the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act. One might wish to know how much has this semi-law cost the U.S. taxpayers. Unfortunately, like so much done in a free and open society like the U.S., those numbers are not available from the government.

Well one U.S. Congressman has asked: How Much? and perhaps we will eventually get those numbers.

Congressman Peter DeFazio, a demomcrat from Oregon, has requested the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) disclose trade concessions made to foreign trading partners without Congressional approval. DeFazio's inquiry raises the possibility of Congressional intervention to void new market access commitments granted by USTR to the European Union and other complainants as compensation for a United States trade violation regarding Internet gambling.

In a letter circulated to all members of Congress last week, DeFazio encouraged his colleagues to join him in calling for the USTR to provide a copy of the concession agreement between the United States and the European Union. The USTR had recently rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for the same document, claiming the agreement was classified for national security reasons.

"There is a concern that the USTR may have been ambitious in its use of a ‘national security' classification to avoid any publicity of which new business sectors are to be subject to the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) treaty."

"The issue will be whether the USTR abused its authority by granting new market access to the EU without first securing the consent of the trade committees in Congress,"

said Nao Matsukata, formerly Director of Policy Planning for USTR Robert Zoellick.

"Ultimately, this could invalidate the deal with the EU and cause various WTO Members to revisit the issue of fair compensation from the United States."

Congressman DeFazio's request is an indication that the Administration's unilateral action to attempt to resolve the WTO Internet gambling dispute is in jeopardy.

"Congress should have been consulted before the US agreed to these trade concessions,"

said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative.

"We hope that Mr. DeFazio's colleagues will join him in demanding more transparency, communication, and consultation from the Administration on Internet gambling. A non-discriminatory market for Internet gambling in the United States will restore integrity to the international trading system."

.
The DeFazio request comes following a contentious trade dispute over Internet gambling, in which the Caribbean nation of Antigua successfully challenged the regulation of Internet gambling in the United States. The European Union announced earlier this week that it will open an investigation into a possible international trade violation by the US on this issue. The investigation is the result of a Trade Barriers Regulation complaint filed by the Remote Gambling Association (RGA), which represents the largest remote gambling companies in Europe. The RGA claims the US is in violation of international trade law by threatening and pursuing criminal prosecutions, forfeitures and other enforcement actions against foreign Internet gaming operators, while allowing domestic U.S. online gaming operators, primarily horse betting, to flourish.

Legislation introduced by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046), would regulate Internet gambling and resolve the international trade dispute.

"Rather than paying out millions in trade concessions, which would have an adverse impact on the American economy, the US should embrace the legislative solution presented by the Frank bill, which brings the U.S. into compliance by regulating Internet gambling and creating a level playing field among domestic and foreign Internet gambling operators,"

said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesperson of the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative.

In the ongoing saga of David vs. Goliath (Antigua vs. U.S.), it appears the big, bad United States government seems to think they can violate World Trade Organization rules and still dictate the actions of other countries. Afterall, several countries have settled with the U.S. over the banning of online gaming by the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act. It would seem only natural that the behemoth U.S. should think that other nations would take the meager settlements and move on. Taking on the U.S. in any legal action can have dire consequences in other areas.

Antigua & Barbuda was the first country to step up and demand the U.S. honor WTO regulations and allow online gaming access to the U.S. market. The U.S. trade commission ignored the WTO suit filed by Antigua and lost the hearing and subsequent appeals. Finally, after a massive reduction in the original award, the U.S. semi-agreed to the $3.2 million compensation offered to Antigua. The U.S. further went on to attempt to specify how Antigua could collect such compensation.

Well it appears David is not listening again Goliath and now it appears that Antigua may be leading the way in an all out assault on the arrogant position of the United States.

As reported by the leading U.S. entertainment newspaper, Variety:

"The government of Antigua is likely to abrogate intellectual property treaties with the U.S. by the end of March and authorize wholesale copying of American movies, music and other 'soft targets' if the Bush administration fails to respond to proposals for settling a trade dispute between the two counties.

"The Motion Picture Assn. of America has been closely following the case with tremendous concern fearing that the copying could be extensively damaging and that -- worse -- a dangerous precedent could be set for other small countries angry at U.S. trade policy."

"It is not our preferred option to punish the MPAA or others for the U.S. government's intransigence, but the U.S. has refused to negotiate fairly,"

said Mark E. Mendel, who represents Antigua. Goods and materials that would be copied include

"virtually everything from pharmaceuticals to music, anything with IP protection that can be duplicated, though we'll go for softer targets first."

.
All of this because some right wing politicians don't want us to play a little online poker. Makes you want to run right out and participate in the politial process, doesn't it?

In a classic example of changing a law by not enforcing the law, the government of Sweden has ended it monopoly on online gaming by advising all state prosecutors to halt cases against media organizations accepting ads from foreign online gambling companies, which means that many online poker operators may now decide to begin advertising in Sweden, competing openly with state-supoprted Svenska Spel. And if you can advertise, then apparently you may also operate and accept customers.

The case under consideration had to do with advertising but the ruling signals the government's decision to halt its previous position to allow gaming only with the state sponsored site. The continuing pressure of the European Union was, of course, a strong influence on the decision.

The ruling to open Swedish media to foreign gambling operators acknowledges the European Commission action against Sweden challenging their protectionist practices against foreign gambling operators. But whether my law, or enforcement or wax-sealed letter ruling, it appears one of the major nations in defiance of the EU gaming policy has capitulated.

"It seems that the courts in Sweden are finally starting to accept the changes taking place in Europe and in EC Law,"

one legal counsel said.

We have all heard a phrase that goes something like: "Hold'em is a game that takes a moment to learn and a lifetime to master." Or something similar to that. Well here is a new one for Poker in the Twenty-First Century:

"Internet Poker a moment to learn and a million years to regulate by every dumbass bureaucrat with half-a-brain and a moral compass made out of silly putty."

I must say the proposed Israeli solution, which is rumored to have no chance to pass the High Court of Israel, but I must say this new solution is not all that bad an idea. The proposed law unfortunately lumps poker in with pornography and "violence websites" but the idea is that they all will be blocked from any internet connection in all of Israel. However, one phone call will allow you to access any blocked site. In this way, the children are protected.

Its certainly better than an outright ban. And it really doesn't seem like much of a burden to make a call and say: "Give me naked fat chicks!" Opps! I mean: "I want my online poker please."

Whether it passes or not, this latest proposal will go into the ever growing ledger of Internet prohibition proposals by politicians who hate to allow citizens to actually exercise personal freedom. Chalk up a venial human rights sin for the Israelis.

Ten years ago we could have gone a year or more without finding any legislation or regulation that pertained to how we entertain ourselves in our spare time with our money by playing poker. Now you can't go a day without some governmental agency cranking up a new regulation to restrict what free people do with their lives.

Whether fueled by greed (taxes) or political morality (getting elected by imagined "morals" voters), the various governmental regulators continue to act as only out-of-touch bureaucrats can by proposing extreme regulations that address fictional issues around gaming in general and poker in specific.

Here is the latest on the "Poker as Political Punching Bag" watch.

United Kingdom: The UK Office of Communication has announced plans to reclassify gambling channels to the category of teleshopping and advertising.The proposed changes are said to be in the interest of protecting consumers.

The gambling channels would be covered by an advertising code, which is designed to protect consumers against misleading practices. The new proposed rules should have very little to no impact on what the channels are currently broadcasting; regulators will just be making sure they are offered in a socially responsible fashion.

California: The long rumored bill to make online poker legal in California has been introduced in the State Legislature. While the bill would not officially overturn the provisions of either UIGEA nor the much older Wire Act. The measure would provide cover for banks and other financial institutions by giving them another argument that the vague federal regulations are unenforceable and uninterpretatble.

Back in the UK: The Super Casino issue is still hot on the poltical agenda. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his government are likely to be sued by Manchester, the city who a year ago was awarded the super casino site, when ministers this week confirm that neither Manchester nor Blackpool will be allowed to open a Las Vegas-style gambling resort. Manchester will seek to recover over 250 million pounds spent on the Super Casino previously approve my the UK authorities.

Back in the U.S.: The Poker Players Alliance spent $900,000 in 2007 to lobby the federal government on online gambling legislation.

The PPA, with 800,000 members, lobbied on a bill that would exempt poker from a law that restricts online gambling, and for legislation that would regulate or re-regualte the Internet gaming industry. Since all funds for PPA activities come from members, who we must assume are poker players; this means that $900,000 was taken out of the poker economy to lobby the U.S. government to leave law abiding citizens alone. Land of the free and home of the over-regulated.

The nations, city-states, regions and races of the European continent have fought for thousands of years. They have fought over territory, religion, ethnicity, money, freedom and slavery, human rights and the right to control humans. Since 1993, the European Union has attempted to be:

"A political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. The EU comprises a single market created by a system of laws which apply in all member states, guaranteeing the freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital. It maintains a common trade policy, agricultural and fisheries policies, and a regional development policy. The EU represents its members in the WTO and observes at G8 summits and at the UN. With almost 500 million citizens, the EU generated an estimated 31% share of the world's nominal GDP (US$16.6 trillion) in 2007." [Wikipedia]

.
Some major accomplishments of the EU treaty organization have been:

-the abolition of passport requirements between member nations; although they are now considering fingerprinting all non-EU visitors.

-assigning the exclusive use of the word "chocolate" to a country that exists in the middle of a continent that grows not one single cacao tree.

-a united front for trade negotiations with non-EU members; internal negotiations have not gone so well; which leads us to poker.

Oh right, poker! The EU Internal Markets Commissioner, who is charged with the free flow of trade and products within the European Union is having one hell of a time with regulating or rather de-regulating online gaming. And here you thought the biggest problem was who gets to call their sparkling headache water--champagne.

Below is a current overview of EU members and their non-compliance with the free flow of pot limit poker on the web.

I. Nelson Rose wrote a very interesting article last week on the State of Poker. I would like to offer some alternative comments and expository meanderings on some excerpts of his thoughts.

Mr. Rose's words are in italics.

"The European Court of Justice and the European Commission have issued dramatic statements calling for the end of barriers to internet gambling. Some observers see these as the beginning of the end for America's Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and the opening of doors to internet poker."

I agree with Mr. Rose that there will be a dramatic confrontation within the EU regarding online gaming and perhaps even with a special exemption for poker. I also agree that many in the United States and some Far East nations see this as an opening for them to implement laws and regulations in their own countries.

"These developments are certainly much needed good news for publicly traded online poker companies, like PartyGaming. But I believe people are being way too optimistic in believing that changes in the law in Europe, or even direct challenges from Europe, will lead to any relaxing of U.S. federal prohibitions in the immediate future."

I would go even further and say that positive changes for E.U. member nations poker players will actually have negative consequences for U.S. poker players. You see if the E.U. actually opens up its online gaming operations, the European Poker Tour could very rapidly replace the WPT as the premiere poker tour. Why do you think the WSOP held its first European event this year? A unified and open online poker community under the E.U. auspices could funnel thousands of players to E.U. based tournaments.

In the continuing and ill-advisted attempt to control the Internet, the new Labour government in Australia is proposing a "Clean Feed." The technically retarded bureaucrats led by prime minister Kevin Rudd are seeking to increase control and censorship of the Internet by regulating Internet Service Providers.

Rudd’s plan is to "require" ISPs to provide “clean feeds” that are free of porn and online gambling sites. Supporters of the plan assure that only sites on a (presumably government authored) blacklist will be blocked, and that citizens can opt-out if they wish.

“The Rudd Government campaigned on a platform promising to speed up Australians’ access to the worldwide web by rolling out broadband around the country, the blacklist enlistment of ISPs would have the opposite effect."

Yet another example of a government with no understanding of personal freedom, much less an technical concept of how the infrastructure of the Internet functions.

The United Kingdom's Gambling Commission (Department of Culture, Media and Sports) has rejected the applications of Antigua & Barbuda and the Kahnawake Reservation Territories to join the White List of approved online gaming sites. To be on the White List means you can advertise in the UK. To be off the White List is well... to be Black Listed.

The colorful administration of Ministry of Doublespeak is simply a WhiteWashed system to ban certain businesses from operating in the UK. Antigua & Barbuda, where over 500 gaming sites operate, thought they had complied with all of the UK requirements. They were, however, reject without comment. The Kahnawakes host over 50% of the worldwide gaming operations and they are now looking into:

"Possible recourses against the UK under Article 20 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

Sometimes you just have to take your hat off to some of the ways that governments dream up to mess with our lives. Today we offer a salute to the government of Finland for a brilliant example of creative governance.

We all know that many countries want to control (tax) online gaming revenues, which generally means they want their citizens to only gamble on their state controlled sites. The problem with that is, of course, all of these countries have trade agreements and restricting gambling online violations those treaties. So we hear endlessly about Antigua, White Zones, UIGEA, ad nauseum.

The truly innovative regulators from the Finnish Ministry of Health have stepped up with an idea so far ahead of its time that we simply must tip our clown hats to them. They have proposed allowing all Finnish citizens full access to any and all gaming sites online with no restrictions. Oh, except that every citizen of Finland who loses money playing online, would have the right to sue their credit card company or bank for those losses. You see it would be illegal to lose money online. You see gambling, including poker, is a pyramid scheme to move money from the losers to the winners. You gotta love the illogic. Not to mention the sheer creativity of the proposal.

Don't be shocked but Finland has been added to the European Union's list of countries that are currently in dispute over compliance with EU trade and tariff regulations concerning online gaming.

You have to admit, it was creative!

As the Shrink has argued many times in the past, the entire "legal" argument about poker as 'game of skill' or 'game of luck" is unproductive and misses the point. The point being that governments anywhere have no right, no business and no mandate to be mucking around if what you do with your time, your money and your life. Yet, again another country of poker players are having their rights restricted based on the bogus discussion of "Luck vs. Skill", this time we take you to Denmark.

The Danish High Court (Eastern Division) ruled that tournament poker is a game of chance, overturning a previous lower district court ruling that, of course, found poker to be a game of skill and games of skill are not subject to Denmark's restrictive gambling laws.

The decision is a setback for the Danish Poker Association which once again finds itself in breach of the Danish Criminal Law. Yes, their existence, including lobbying and speaking out for the rights of poker players are technically criminal under the existing law.

Poker tournament organizers have been sued by, who else, the Danish Casino Association for organizing illegal gambling events. Not that the DCA organizes anywhere near the number of poker events the poker playing public would demand in an open and free marketplace.

There will be another appeal, of course, but in the meantime the estimated half a million Danes who play poker will have to consider whether an evening of enjoyment playing poker is worth arrest and possible prosecution with penalties right up there with auto theft and burglary.