Is RX going to do this too ?

SBR will create a website for US viewers that will not contain any links or even url's to any gaming companies. We will still maintain the current web site for international visitors.

The SBRForum.com and the SBRLines.com websites will remain as is. We are currently studying the idea of allowing the ads but possibly disabling the link function.

I apologize in advance to our many loyal visitors for any inconvenience while we are implementing these changes.
<!-- / message -->

At this point I doubt it.




wil.

The links here are money for RX.

SBR is American owned with CR servers to my knowledge. The Rx is not American owned. The Shrink always said he could see a day like this come and that was his excuse for selling. For what its worth.

It would seem to make John's ad revenue far less, unless the US version is just for looks, and everybody just uses the "World" version, something like .net, and .com ?

Not exactly a show of faith when the site is afraid of a law that says nothing about websites. If they are not facilitatng money transfers or taking bets what is going to happen? Drag them in for aiding someone to make a bet, because of a passthrough? Would get laughed out of court because the internet is public domain. If not through that site then somewhere else. Or just direct. Maybe a pebble fell on their heads when they were checking for helicopters hovering outside.


Best Wishes...OF :howdy:

OMNIVOROUS FROG said:

Not exactly a show of faith when the site is afraid of a law that says nothing about websites. If they are not facilitatng money transfers or taking bets what is going to happen? Drag them in for aiding someone to make a bet, because of a passthrough? Would get laughed out of court because the internet is public domain. If not through that site then somewhere else. Or just direct. Maybe a pebble fell on their heads when they were checking for helicopters hovering outside.


Best Wishes...OF :howdy:

Click to expand...

the law about advertising sportsbooks etc. has been around for a long time. just ask the sportingnews

Sean closed his site maybe 6-12 months ago, it had links to books and described bonuses and specials, and who had things like even money teasers, and free half-points at certain times, etc.

buster said:

the law about advertising sportsbooks etc. has been around for a long time. just ask the sportingnews

Click to expand...

...and the only company to whom it mattered, since it was their core business, Casino City sued the DOJ, and the DOJ folded.

http://online.casinocity.com/news/news.cfm?ArticleId=52738

There is no law, only the DOJ going around writing threatening letters and companies complying without taking the issue to court.

OMNIVOROUS FROG said:

Not exactly a show of faith when the site is afraid of a law that says nothing about websites. If they are not facilitatng money transfers or taking bets what is going to happen? Drag them in for aiding someone to make a bet, because of a passthrough? Would get laughed out of court because the internet is public domain. If not through that site then somewhere else. Or just direct. Maybe a pebble fell on their heads when they were checking for helicopters hovering outside.


Best Wishes...OF :howdy:

Click to expand...

ope:

Sean closed his site maybe 6-12 months ago, it had links to books and described bonuses and specials, and who had things like even money teasers, and free half-points at certain times, etc.

>>>>>>>

I closed it because after the DOJ warning that sites should stop, I considered the options.

I make far more wagering in one year than I did in 5 years with the site.
I do not have the funds nor wish to have a lengthy legal battle with the DOJ.
I was seeking venture capital money for a completely unrelated endeavor and most firms were not keen on the site.
I was seeking my medical license and a felony really doesn't help no matter how unlikely.
My gambling site was only a very small portion of my anual income and any arrest could have eliminated a much larger portion of my income as a physician.

Given the above reasons, it was a financial decision by me to close the site and remove all links and ads.

I do not think we'll see the day when advertisers are prosecuted, but if Goodlatte gets the wire act updated, you then may well see it.

The DOJ knows prosecution of this type will open it to costly litigation that it might lose and at this point in time seems to prefer the scare tactic.

BTW, the DOJ did not fold in the casinocity case. Rather than fight the case and let the court decide the outcome, the DOJ chose to say Casinocity did not have jurisdiction as they had not been directly threatened. The DOJ did not want to chance losing but basically gave Casinocity a free pass so they could continue the scare tactic. Given that this case cost casinocity over $1M, I really didn't think it would be wise to fight the DOJ on behalf of my site that was really created when I simply put up a post at SSB describing bonuses, parlay odds, teaser odds, free 1/2 pts and reduced vig . People liked the post and told me I should put it on a website. Never in my wildest dreams did I think my free speech could be abolished....


-Sean

Woody0 said:

...and the only company to whom it mattered, since it was their core business, Casino City sued the DOJ, and the DOJ folded.

http://online.casinocity.com/news/news.cfm?ArticleId=52738

There is no law, only the DOJ going around writing threatening letters and companies complying without taking the issue to court.

Click to expand...

wow! that is good to know i got one of those letters about a year ago.and just pulled the links off. the reason i beleived it was because all of the radio stations were being told the same thing and complying.especially clear channel. so i figured if they would not f' with it i would get clobbered in court

sean1 said:

BTW, the DOJ did not fold in the casinocity case. Rather than fight the case and let the court decide the outcome, the DOJ chose to say Casinocity did not have jurisdiction as they had not been directly threatened.

Click to expand...

Correct, that was part of their motion of dismissal.

In poker parlance I consider that the equivalent of folding your hand and not taking it to a showdown. Do you play poker Sean?