State Senate approves online gambling and legalized sports betting in New Jersey

In addition to the on-line gambling, they want to introduce sports betting and permit 200 room casinos to be built in Atlantic City. There is no discussion of allowing casinos to be built in other parts of the state.

State Senate approves online gambling and legalized sports betting in New Jersey By JULIET FLETCHER Staff Writer | Posted: Monday, November 22, 2010

There are a few ways they could keep it limited to New Jersians (sp?) but they're all easily side-stepped. I hope they have real sports betting, none of the parlay 50% EV bull we see in states other than Nevada.

Quote: pacomartin

In addition to the on-line gambling, they want to introduce sports betting and permit 200 room casinos to be built in Atlantic City. There is no discussion of allowing casinos to be built in other parts of the state.

I edited your post to remove the whole article and put in a link. Please stop doing that! I think this is the third time I've told you.

Quote: pacomartin

In addition to the on-line gambling, they want to introduce sports betting and permit 200 room casinos to be built in Atlantic City. There is no discussion of allowing casinos to be built in other parts of the state.

State Senate approves online gambling and legalized sports betting in New Jersey By JULIET FLETCHER Staff Writer | Posted: Monday, November 22, 2010

quoting the article, note: "a resolution to ask voters next year whether to legalize sports betting in New Jersey should a federal ban be overturned. " and "could test the federal government’s restrictions on online gambling."

emphasis mine

the whole thing seems to be testing the waters

Quote: Wizard

I edited your post to remove the whole article and put in a link. Please stop doing that! I think this is the third time I've told you.

I thought it was just the Las Vegas Review Journal. Sorry.
I was the one who warned other people not to put in whole articles from the Las Vegas papers in June . I didn't want you to get in trouble. That was months before your warning in September. I didn't think the Atlantic city paper was suing anyone.

I just don't see loads of direct state revenue on the sports gambling end. Now, I would LOVE for sports gambling to be available onlne and live nationwide. I'd LOVE to go to the casino, make my bets, and have a reason to enjoy the game. But I just don't see where the state makes tons of direct money. Maybe they make it in the extra business for the casino. Maybe legalizing sports betting is simply the right thing to do. (Anything that pisses off the NFL so much is the right thing to do!) Lets quit pretending sports wagering is bad for sports and legalize it.

Quote: pacomartin

I thought it was just the Las Vegas Review Journal. Sorry.
I was the one who warned other people not to put in whole articles from the Las Vegas papers in June . I didn't want you to get in trouble. That was months before your warning in September. I didn't think the Atlantic city paper was suing anyone.

Apology accepted. The request goes for all articles. Not only might anybody sue me, but it is also the right thing to do to respect copyright.

Quote: Wizard

The request goes for all articles. Not only might anybody sue me, but it is also the right thing to do to respect copyright.

Nobody's going to sue you. What are the damages? I'm not aware of the caselaw on this (I believe it has been addressed by courts before), but I'm pretty sure the burden isn't entirely on the site manager to police all the content on it. How would that be any different than requiring the domain host to police all the content on all the domains being hosted?

My lay advice: put a public legal policy somewhere on your site with similar terms to YouTube and you should be fine. Something like "I'm not responsible for what other people post, but if someone puts up copyrighted material, let me know and I'll remove it."

See the Right Haven cases versus the R-J recently...

Quote: thecesspit

See the Right Haven cases versus the R-J recently...

Ok, I amend my advice. Do this:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-loophole/

Regarding the copyright thing:

LVRJ isn't suing anyone as far as I know. Technically they are selling the rights to their copyrighted material to a second company which makes a business out of suing websites for infringment.

There is nothing stopping this company from buying other copyrighted material. In fact, my guess is that this company scours the internet, looking for websites with deep pockets that happen to have posted copyrighted material (on puprose or accidentally). Then the find the owner of the copyrighted material and make a bid for the material in question, with the hopes of winning a law suit against the websites. On top of that, they use intimidation tactics to prevent the suit from ever reaching a courtroom. This way the can try and get a favorable settlement without having to litigate constantly.

Quote: CoolMike

Regarding the copyright thing:

LVRJ isn't suing anyone as far as I know. Technically they are selling the rights to their copyrighted material to a second company which makes a business out of suing websites for infringment.

There is nothing stopping this company from buying other copyrighted material. In fact, my guess is that this company scours the internet, looking for websites with deep pockets that happen to have posted copyrighted material (on puprose or accidentally).

You are correct that LVRJ is not suing anyone. However, LVRJ is very interested in increasing their profits from online services. They want Righthaven to sue people on behalf of their articles and deliberately made this arrangement with them to protect their intellectual rights.

But you are wrong about Righthaven looking for website with deep pockets. One of the reasons that people are upset is that they are running a numbers game where they are suing everyone for $75K even if the website is about "cute little kittens". They have brought over a hundred lawsuits and presumably settling many of them out of court.

Thank you, Mathextremist, for the link The $105 Fix That Could Protect You From Copyright-Troll Lawsuits By David Kravets October 27, 2010 on wired.com