All .COM domains now subject to US Law : Othor Games

» Mon May 14, 2012 7:41 am

(title shamelessly stolen from HN)

Yesterday Forbes broke the news that Canadian Calvin Ayre and partners who operate the Bodog online gambling empire have been indicted in the U.S., and in a blog post Calvin Ayre confirmed that their bodog.com domain had been seized by homeland security. As reported in Forbes (hat tip to The Domains for the cite),

According to the six-page indictment filed by Rosenstein, Ayre worked with Philip, Ferguson and Maloney to supervise an illegal gambling business from June 2005 to January 2012 in violation of Maryland law. The indictment focuses on the movement of funds from accounts outside the U.S., in Switzerland, England, Malta, and Canada, and the hiring of media resellers and advertisers to promote Internet gambling.

“Sports betting is illegal in Maryland, and federal law prohibits bookmakers from flouting that law simply because they are located outside the country,” Rosenstein said in a statement. “Many of the harms that underlie gambling prohibitions are exacerbated when the enterprises operate over the Internet without regulation.”

That is a truly scary quote but we'll emphasize that: "The indictment focuses on the movement of funds outside the U.S." and that you can't just "flout US law" by not being in the US. What also needs to be understood is that the domain bodog.com was registered to via a non-US Registrar, namely Vancouver's domainclip.

http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/29/verisign-seizes-com-domain-registered-via-foreign-registrar-on-behalf-of-us-authorities/

» Mon May 14, 2012 3:58 am

This is nothing new for anyone familiar with ICE our sites :shrug:

The US has had control over the .com TLD for a long time. It also might (not certain) have control over the .org TLD. The companies that give these TLDs are US-based and must obey US laws and orders.

» Sun May 13, 2012 8:15 pm

What? Seriously? Even non-US registrars? :huh:

» Mon May 14, 2012 5:02 am

Oh boy, this isn't going to end well. Keep it up US, and no one will want to host with .com or be anywhere within a 10 foot metapole of your internet space.

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:16 pm

I Really don't understand why the US is wasting time going after these sites when there are bigger problems out there to deal with, like Iran as one example.

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:10 pm

I Really don't understand why the US is wasting time going after these sites when there are bigger problems out there to deal with, like Iran as one example.

Please, don't mention politics if you can avoid it, this thread is already in a grey area but I imagine it's fine as long as we stick to this specific issue and nothing else.

» Mon May 14, 2012 6:42 am

What? Seriously? Even non-US registrars? :huh:

Verisign, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSN ) is an American company based in Reston, Virginia that operates a diverse array of network infrastructure, including two of the Internet's thirteen root
nameservers, the authoritative registry for the .com, .net, and .name generic top-level domains and the .cc and .tv country-code top-level domains, and the back-end systems for the .jobs, and .edu top-level domains.

All companies that want a site with one of those TLDs must get it from VeriSign, which is a US company and therefore must comply with US laws. Many sites have been ICE'd in the past few months just like what you are describing.

The sites are still accessible, their Domain Name is just revoked.

You can read more about the US seizing domains here: http://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-130-domain-names-in-mass-crackdown-111125/

» Mon May 14, 2012 7:39 am

It is a bit crap, but the US throwing its weight around isn't exactly news.

» Mon May 14, 2012 3:29 am

It is a bit crap, but the US throwing its weight around isn't exactly news.

I find it interesting in a bad way: It's showing a huge flaw in the Internet's design. The Internet was supposed to be free from control by any one government, yet pretty much all non-country-based TLDs are given out by US companies, so the US can order these companies to give them the domain, effectively putting the majority of the web under US control (or at least the accessible web for most people).

» Mon May 14, 2012 3:00 am

I find it interesting in a bad way: It's showing a huge flaw in the Internet's design. The Internet was supposed to be free from control by any one government, yet pretty much all non-country-based TLDs are given out by US companies, so the US can order these companies to give them the domain, effectively putting the majority of the web under US control (or at least the accessible web for most people).

Yeah, that's what I'm wishing I'd written! Although individual companies can't not be subject to their local laws, if this is the way ownership works, then the jurisdiction in question needs to behave in a more globally responsible manner, but the temptation is going to be to not do that. Which is what's happened here.

» Mon May 14, 2012 12:27 am

i'm not sure i agree that the website runners should be responsible for the local laws in every inch of the world

since they're being indicted only for a local law to the state of maryland...

» Mon May 14, 2012 4:07 am

i'm not sure i agree that the website runners should be responsible for the local laws in every inch of the world

Well, no, you'd think that only the laws where a website's owner is based would be applicable. My .com domains belong to me, I'm not a US citizen and my domains' hosts aren't based in the US, so it seems fundamentally wrong that my domains are subject to US laws. Seems to be a bit of a legal land-grab going on there.

» Sun May 13, 2012 10:57 pm

Well, no, you'd think that only the laws where a website's owner is based would be applicable. My .com domains belong to me, I'm not a US citizen and my domains' hosts aren't based in the US, so it seems fundamentally wrong that my domains are subject to US laws. Seems to be a bit of a legal land-grab going on there.

They're allowing US users to access something that is illegal in the US. Why should that be legal? The site could have simply disallowed betting by users based in the US.

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:49 pm

They're allowing US users to access something that is illegal in the US. Why should that be legal? The site could have disallowed betting by users based in the US.

Gambling is quite legal in the majority of the US.The site owner has no idea the local laws of every place in the world, nor does, in most cases, the site owner have control over exactly where their site is hosted when it comes to the physical location of the servers their host uses (which'll be more of a poblem as Content Delivery Networks become more widespread).

» Mon May 14, 2012 1:20 am

Gambling is quite legal in the majority of the US.The site owner has no idea the local laws of every place in the world, nor does, in most cases, the site owner have control over exactly where their site is hosted when it comes to the physical location of the servers their host uses (which'll be more of a poblem as Content Delivery Networks become more widespread).

Nevada and Indian lands. Some designated cities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States. They should know where their users are located because those users have to register with the website. They also need to distribute payment to those users. The operation seems designed to evade US law. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-28/bodog-online-gaming-founder-indicted-for-money-laundering-website-seized.html.

» Mon May 14, 2012 12:55 am

Nevada and Indian lands. Not the majority of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States#Legal_issues

They should know where their users are located because those users have to register with the website.

It's not about end-users, it's about server location, which is controlled by the web host, not by the actual website in many situations. It is further muddied by content delivery networks which host a website on multiple servers to provide failover when one server goes down. The website owner definitely has no control over this. The legalise of it all is just a huge mess impossible for anyone to navigate without violating something somewhere.

They also need to distribute payment to those users. The operation seems designed to evade US law. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-28/bodog-online-gaming-founder-indicted-for-money-laundering-website-seized.html.

They're not purposefully evading US laws, they aren't a US company!

Online retailers, for example, don't have to collect taxes from buyers outside their home state in the US.

» Sun May 13, 2012 9:08 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States#Legal_issues

It's not about end-users, it's about server location, which is controlled by the web host, not by the actual website in many situations. It is further muddied by content delivery networks which host a website on multiple servers to provide failover when one server goes down. The website owner definitely has no control over this. Learn what you're talking about.

They're not purposefully evading US laws, they aren't a US company!

Now we're talking past each other. I'm not talking about the ability to yank the domain, I'm talking about the ability to prosecute.

Gambling is regulated by the states, and it is illegal in the majority of the US as your link shows.

Maryland was able to act because its citizens were able to access the site. Sever location doesn't matter if the end user can access it and if the company in question was directly advertising their activities to users in the US (which they were). The scheme was designed to allow people to bet from places where betting is illegal.

Edit: Also, it seems that sports betting is illegal underhttp://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/wire-act.htmwith limited exceptions.

» Mon May 14, 2012 7:43 am

Now we're talking past each other. I'm not talking about the ability to yank the domain, I'm talking about the ability to prosecute.

Gambling is regulated by the states, and it is illegal in the majority of the US as your link shows.

Maryland was able to act because its citizens were able to access the site. Sever location doesn't matter if the end user can access it and if the company in question was directly advertising their activities to users in the US (which they were). The scheme was designed to allow people to bet from places where betting is illegal.

You're not understanding what I'm saying, I'm saying the company is not accountable to the local laws and Ignorantia juris non excusat doesn't apply because the company IS outside the jurisdiction of the applicable law (not being in Maryland).

The only way this can be allowed, as I see it, is to first prove that the runners of bodog had a working knowledge of Maryland law (being outside the physical jurisdiction, but having a knowledge of it and servicing the area would make them guilty of willful violation of the law).

Edit: Also, it seems that sports betting is illegal underhttp://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/wire-act.htmwith limited exceptions.

The indictment specifically states Maryland law as being broken, and that's what I'm challenging. Other violations, though, also fall under the same category of being outside the physical jurisdiction and needing to prove the runners of the site had a knowledge of the law before being able to convict them of violating it (since they themselves are not governed by the law)

» Sun May 13, 2012 3:52 pm

They're allowing US users to access something that is illegal in the US. Why should that be legal? The site could have simply disallowed betting by users based in the US.

Some US sites are providing content which is illegal for people who live in countries with Sharia law, for example. Should the US companies be subject to their jurisdiction? If not, then why should the US have legal sway in the same circumstances?

» Sun May 13, 2012 4:21 pm

You're not understanding what I'm saying, I'm saying the company is not accountable to the local laws and Ignorantia juris non excusat doesn't apply because the company IS outside the jurisdiction of the applicable law (not being in Maryland).

The only way this can be allowed, as I see it, is to first prove that the runners of bodog had a working knowledge of Maryland law (being outside the physical jurisdiction, but having a knowledge of it and servicing the area would make them guilty of willful violation of the law).

I was under the impression that most people, who are in the casino/gambling business - know that gambling, even online, is illegal in most states. That would mean they willfully made a way for those people to gamble illegally using their site.

I'm not saying every single site should be held to Maryland law, but isn't it possible to restrict access? Having to put in a zip code or something?

Edit: That wasn't what I meant to say. Had to reword it.

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:22 pm

I was under the impression that most people, who are in the casino/gambling business - know that gambling, even online, is illegal in most states. That would mean they willfully made a way for those people to gamble illegally using their site.

I'm not saying every single site should be held to Maryland law, but isn't it possible to restrict access? Having to put in a zip code or something?

Edit: That wasn't what I meant to say. Had to reword it.

If they can prove in court they knew and willfully violated Maryland law, then sure, otherwise it's outside the physical jurisdiction so ignorance SHOULD be a defense.

» Mon May 14, 2012 2:38 am

Some US sites are providing content which is illegal for people who live in countries with Sharia law, for example. Should the US companies be subject to their jurisdiction? If not, then why should the US have legal sway in the same circumstances?

Those countries could attempt to sue / prosecute the site owners. They probably wouldn't be able to get anything from them. Do those countries have the ability to seize in-country assets or forcibly haul the owners / shareholders into trial? Probably not. They're small fry.

China might.

You're not understanding what I'm saying, I'm saying the company is not accountable to the local laws and Ignorantia juris non excusat doesn't apply because the company IS outside the jurisdiction of the applicable law (not being in Maryland).

The only way this can be allowed, as I see it, is to first prove that the runners of bodog had a working knowledge of Maryland law (being outside the physical jurisdiction, but having a knowledge of it and servicing the area would make them guilty of willful violation of the law).

The indictment specifically states Maryland law as being broken, and that's what I'm challenging. Other violations, though, also fall under the same category of being outside the physical jurisdiction and needing to prove the runners of the site had a knowledge of the law before being able to convict them of violating it (since they themselves are not governed by the law)

They're indicted for money laundering so it would seem that they knew it was illegal - or possibly illegal - for certain end users and attempted to avoid that issue by shuffling funds around different countries.

I don't know how that Federal Law I just dug up would effects things. Probably not in their favor. And ignorance of the law still doesn't get them off the hook anyway, even if they're not based in the US. They're targeting their services to US users. Federal law also piggy-backs on the MD law, as Federal law covers transactions between states and between countries.

Let me re-frame the issue. If I decide to make child pormography available from my website hosted in Sealand would you claim that no country can prosecute me because I'm based in my own country?

» Sun May 13, 2012 11:58 pm

They're indicted for money laundering so it would seem that they knew it was illegal - or possibly illegal - for certain end users and attempted to avoid that issue by shuffling funds around different countries.

every company does this to take advantage of tax loopholes, look up Google's tax evading Double Irish scheme, it's 100% legal :whisper:

I don't know how that Federal Law I just dug up would effects things. Probably not in their favor. And ignorance of the law still doesn't get them off the hook anyway, even if they're not based in the US. The Federal law also piggy-backs on the MD law, as Federal law covers transactions between states and between countries.

Ignorance not being a defense only occurs when you operate/live in the same jurisdiction as the broken law.

Let me re-frame the issue. If I decide to make child pormography available from my website hosted in Sealand would you claim that no country can prosecute me because I'm based in my own country?

Sealand isn't a recognized country, and the owners would arrest you first just for the publicity. Sorry, I don't fall for reductio ad absurdum

» Sun May 13, 2012 4:31 pm

Let me re-frame the issue. If I decide to make child pormography available from my website hosted in Sealand would you claim that no country can prosecute me because I'm based in my own country?

Strictly speaking, that would be the case, although should your own country fail to put its house in order, the international community would likely have a quiet word with its governors over the small matter of human rights abuses.

» Sun May 13, 2012 11:47 pm

If they can prove in court they knew and willfully violated Maryland law, then sure, otherwise it's outside the physical jurisdiction so ignorance SHOULD be a defense.

If you're entering a business that is illegal in some areas of the world, and you are going to market to the world, isn't it YOUR responsibility to know and understand the laws effecting that?

If I want to sell alcohol to the world market, I need to know the regulations attached to that. Just because "online gambling" isn't a physical product (even the money can be seen a electronic funds and therefore not physical) should it be held to a different standard?