Feds Continue Crackdown On Poker... By Seizing The Wrong Bodog Domain
from the keystone-kops dept
The feds domain name seizure powers seem simple enough (if of extremely questionable legality, seeing as domains involve speech which requires a higher standard to seize), so it really amazes me how badly they seem to regularly screw up in using them. The latest is the seizure of Bodog.com as well as the indictment of Bodog boss Calvin Ayre. While there's been lots of attention paid to the seizures of sites having to do with copyright and trademark infringement, the same feds (ICE and the DOJ) have also been using the same powers gleefully to stop you from playing poker online. You may recall that they seized PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker last April, followed up by 10 more domain seizures in May (which was especially bizarre, since the key thing that's illegal is processing payments, but in that case, the federal government set up its own fake payment processor for those sites...).Bodog, however, has been considered the "big dog" of online poker for quite some time, raising some questions as to why it wasn't included in last years' busts. Of course, in typical fashion, the feds seem to have targeted the wrong domain. Bodog gambling sites moved off of Bodog.com ages ago -- first due to a patent dispute, and later to avoid having the sites on US controlled domains. For quite some time the company has mainly relied on bodog.eu, and more recently has been offering a different domain called Bovada.lv for US-based players.
As for Bodog.com? It had become the face of the "Bodog Brand" and was used for licensing the Bodog name, but wasn't itself a gambling site in ages. The affidavit for seizure (pdf and embedded below) claims that federal agents set up accounts and gambled on Bodog.com, but I really wonder if they didn't miss the fact that they were redirected to another site. Checking the internet archive, it certainly looks like Bodog.com was pretty much out of commission long before the feds claimed to have set up and used accounts there. Either way, the seizure seems unlikely to do much to stop gambling on Bodog sites, considering that the actual gambling was happening on sites, other than Bodog.com, which likely are still perfectly operational.
As for the actual indictment (pdf and embedded below) against the individuals, it's more or less what you'd expect. They focus a lot how Bodog moved money around, but much of that was only necessary because of the (relatively recent) decision by some politicians in the US to sneak an anti-online gambling bill into a bill about protecting our ports and harbors. Ever since then there's been a growing effort in Congress to actually make online gambling legal again -- in part because the big casinos who mostly supported the original ban have now changed their minds and want in on the action. In other words, while it is likely that Ayers and his team did violate the law, there are a lot of questions about the law itself, and there's a half decent chance that what he was doing will be perfectly legal before too long.
Kinda makes you wonder why the feds are spending their time and taxpayer-funded resources on such a thing, doesn't it?
As for Ayers, he sounds pretty defiant, suggesting that this is really just the feds acting in the best interests of large casinos who don't like the competition:
I see this as abuse of the US criminal justice system for the commercial gain of large US corporations. It is clear that the online gaming industry is legal under international law and in the case of these documents is it also clear that the rule of law was not allowed to slow down a rush to try to win the war of public opinion.The whole thing seems like a big waste of time by some federal officials who like big headlines, but don't seem particularly focused on stopping crimes that actually cause real harm.
These documents were filed with Forbes magazine before they were filed anywhere else and were drafted with the consumption of the media as a primary objective. We will all look at this and discuss the future with our advisors, but it will not stop my many business interests globally that are unrelated to anything in the US....
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: calvin ayre, doj, domains, ice, online gambling, poker, seizures
Companies: bodog
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ask the other poker places, that no longer allow US players to access their paying sites. It's the way that it is done. If they could go to bodog.com and click a "play poker for money" style link that goes to a site owned by the same people, then it's just a dodge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fucking microsoft trying to pull quick one. Shut um down boys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone marking your post insightful is truly stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So what? Just because other poker places cave in doesn't mean that's the right & proper thing to do. Why should they block US players unless there is a law where they are operating requiring them to do so?
To argue that they should is to argue that US law should be imposed globally.
I am truly amazed at the time, effort, and money that we through at prosecuting these sites when it could be going to something that actually matters. Even worse, we are engaging in abusive practices to do so. It's worse than a waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because when they deal with a US player, they are (remarkably) operating in part in the US, offering services in the US, and are as a result SUBJECT TO US LAW.
I am truly amazed that you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they are not. They are not operating in any part in the US, and they are not subject to US law. Not according to US law, anyway.
Offering services to US citizens? Sure! But that is not in violation of the law where they are, and since they aren't in the US themselves, US law does not apply to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong: U.S. law certainly does apply to them. Why? Because they are transacting with US citizens while the US citizens are residing in the US. Just like any online retailer based in a different country, if the online retailer is advertising to customers in the US and selling products to persons located in the US, it is enjoying the benefits and protections of US law (i.e., transacting in denominations of U.S. currency, which are being transferred to the retailer through channels located in and regulated by the United States), and is therefore subject to US jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's why SOPA & PIPA had to go through such legal gymnastics to try and make US law affect people outside the US. It has no direct authority over them regardless of what they do. Instead, the bills were trying to reach them by imposing rules on the entities they deal with who are, in fact, in the US: payment service providers, ISPs, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently there are enough legal options to arrest a German/Finnish citizen in New Zealand operating a business in Hong Kong without SOPA/PIPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whats not mentioned here is the fact the US lost its case to the WTO a few years back and did not comply with the ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Traditionally, you had a few choices. Either send an army to enforce your court's decisions, or hope the country would 'hand `em over'. Domain names are kind of wonky though, anyways. They are essentially just phone numbers or addresses but for the Internet. It only makes sense that you'd go after the phone companies or the post office with interception demands, so now they're applying that logic to domain registrations. Many countries even go to the public's ISP's and demand DNS/IP blocking (which is stupid and easy for customers to get but... they have you by the you-know-whats as an ISP).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
oh, right. INTERNET!
got it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whoa. I knew prostitution was legal in Nevada, but I didn't know they had machines for it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go to a legal, licensed casino, and you are not breaking the law. Gamble online with an offshore service, and yes, you are breaking the (current) law.
How hard is that to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I have a buddy sitting at a casino table in Vegas with a bag full of my money, and he and I are on the phone, can I gamble via proxy? I tell him how much to bet, he tells me what he sees, I tell him to hit, stay, double down, etc...(assuming blackjack). Ignore whether or not a casino would allow this, just is it legal?
If it isn't legal then the whole "does the gambling occur where it is illegal" argument is a lot harder and trickier to defend/understand than you want to make it out to be. If it is legal then why is gambling through the same phone line (assuming dialup) using a series of 1s and 0s illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely. However, it is the player breaking the law, not the offshore service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
what does that have to do with an online casino operating in another country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are all Criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For example, if American Eagle Outfitters were an evil gambling site, and americaneagle.com gave you a "Were you looking for..." link to their website, should the web development company be subject to having its domain seized?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not like just putting up a link - it's their business!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nameotomy
--Signed, CIA/NSA/TSA/FBI/(a too many other TLA's to mention)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nameotomy
Too bad Chrome doesn't have that hide-the-white-bar-thingy feature. Guess I'll prep for jail ... even jail is safer than IE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Up next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
since when has that been any concern to law enforcement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid logic isn't it. Under the same logic if a woman who was fierce supporter of women's rights did what Jack Abramoff did then politicians would vote to repeal the right of women to vote, just to show they weren't corrupted/bribed by her despite all the money she gave them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, why are the Feds spending their time prosecuting lawbreakers? It's so puzzling.
/sarc
You've really jumped the shark these past few months, Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Depends on what the people, the taxpayers, think of the laws. If they don't like the laws then, indeed, it is a waste of taxpayer money.
"You've really jumped the shark these past few months, Masnick."
No, it's just that you were born retarded.
and where is your blog that everyone visits for insightful analysis? Oh, that's right, no one cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
PS.... Stay Classy!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is your blog?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My mistake, I underestimated the severity of your mental retardation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will...
Will those of you at the Justice Department who -did not- ride the short bus to school, kindly sound off?
(...Crickets...)
Thought so.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perjury!
His lies are perjury.
Perjury is a crime.
It's just too bad that pigs are above the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perjury!
Then (if the system it not totally corrupt) it will be time to prepare for the petit jury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cake
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/12/23/internet-poker-is-sort-of-legal/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're going to make online gambling illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously how hard was it to seize the correct domain
that was hard to find i guess .....o.0?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There already are recognized national domains for Asian countries, if that's what you meant instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]