Australia addresses match-fixing in sports

AUS - Sports Ministers in Australia have taken a united stand against corruption in sports by signing an agreement to address match fixing in sports betting. 

New laws would make it compulsory for ‘sports organisations and betting companies to share information,’ and funding for sports organisations is going to be ‘contingent on sports implementing appropriate anti-match-fixing and anti-corruption practices,’ it was announced last week. 

The laws will be implemented at state-level and a new watchdog, the National Integrity of Sport Unit, is set ‘to oversee the national arrangements’, Federal Sports Minister Mark Arbib said in a statement. 

"This is an outstanding result for sport. I am pleased that all Australia’s governments are presenting a united front against the scourge of match-fixing," Senator Arbib explained. "Sport is vulnerable to organised crime, to launder money and conceal illegal activity. The most important thing for Australian sports lovers is to have confidence that our sports are played fairly and that all players are giving their best."

“[The deal] demonstrates a growing interest of the Federal Government to get involved in gambling,” concluded Bill Brown, partner at Landers & Rogers in Melbourne. And Cheng Lim, a partner at Mallesons Stephen Jaques, sees the agreement as “a positive first step in developing a national response,” which is needed since “the laws that regulate sports betting have not been able to keep apace with developments in the betting industry, particularly the growing popularity of online betting”, Lim said from his Melbourne office.

The agreement provides ‘sports with a right to veto bet types’, according to the Sports Minister's statement. Although no formal requirements are yet in place, “steps have already been taken to ban some ‘exotic’ in-play betting perceived to be prone to corruption within the sport,” said Jamie Nettleton, partner at the Sydney law firm Addisons.

Although the Interactive Gambling Act has banned most online gambling activities since 2001, online sports betting is legal in Australia, with many state-licensed betting companies in operation.

Michiel Willems, 2011. Published previously in a London based publication. Copyrights apply. Picture: Fridaymash.com

German deadlock

Anti-gambling organisations in Germany are outraged with their politicians. This might come as a surprise, since the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (ITG) largely outlaws online gambling in Germany. The anti-gambling movement is furious because it is looking beyond tomorrow. Unintentionally, their valued e-gambling ban is at stake.

The current ITG expires at the end of this year, on 31 December at midnight, and in recent weeks it has become evident that German politicians will most likely not be able to have a new Treaty approved and implemented before New Year’s Day. Theoretically, this means the market would be fully open on 1 January.

Many gambling experts wonder how German lawmakers managed to get themselves in such an incredible position. Only last April, the Heads of the German Federal States - except for Schleswig-Holstein - agreed on a new Interstate Treaty (NIT), which was subsequently sent to the European Commission (EC) for approval. The EC has three months to raise any concerns (the so-called standstill period), which means that, by 10 July latest, the EC has to make public whether it has any objections to the draft NIT and whether it is convinced the text complies with EU legislation. So far, the timing was right and the German gambling monopolies seemed to be safeguarded after 31 December.

That was before 13 June, when Germany’s Federal Prime Ministers decided to delay their final decision on the NIT until October; they indicated they will need more time to come up with a legal framework that can be supported by all 16 states. Two issues, however, make the October deadline unrealistic. Firstly, the northern State of Schleswig-Holstein has proposed its own gambling Bill, which has more in common with Atlantic City than the restrictive, monopolistic approach of the 15 other states. Under Schleswig-Holstein’s draft Bill, which was approved by the EC on 9 May, there are no limits as to the number of licences that can be granted and all forms of casino games would be allowed. It will be a huge challenge to come to some sort of agreement that can carry the support of all 16 German Federal States.

Secondly, it is a safe bet to say the EC will reject the NIT in its current form. The NIT would allow online lotteries but solely those that are organised by the state lottery providers, and online sports bets for which a maximum of seven concessions shall be issued. In the past, the EC has made it clear it does not tolerate such monopolies and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) basically crushed the German framework in September 2010 when it said that ‘Germany’s state monopolies could not be justified under European law’. The NIT has failed to address these issues.

Approval in Brussels

But even if the other states manage to get Schleswig-Holstein on board and all of them will agree on a final text in October, the final Treaty still needs to be sent to the EC for approval. This means that another standstill period of three months will commence, so the EC’s endorsement could be given in early January at the earliest, after which the adoption and approval processes in all 16 federal parliaments still have to begin. Legislative processes that can easily take up to a year. And that is just the most positive scenario. More realistic is that the NIT will be rejected by the EC in July and Schleswig-Holstein will not give up so easily on its liberal draft Bill. Experts predict the NIT will never see the light of day, at least not in its current form, simply because it does not comply with EU legislation. It clearly needs to be amended for EC approval.

Pushing for a NIT that does not respect EU principles seems to be a refusal to acknowledge reality. It is becoming more and more likely the current ITG will expire without a new one replacing it in time, which means the market will be fully open, at least for some time. Conservative lawmakers being unable to regulate - for operators it must be a dream come true.

Michiel Willems, 2011. Published previously in a London based publication. Copyrights apply. Pictures: US State Department, state.gov.

 

New association to self-regulate Chinese payments

The Chinese Government has launched the China Payment and Settlement Association (CPSA), a payment clearing association set up to develop China’s payments industry. 

The Ministry of Civil Affairs and the People’s Bank of China (PBC) - the country’s central bank - have given the CPSA the powers to develop industry standards, and regulate the payments and settlement industry. The CPSA’s aim is to encourage industry self-regulation and the management of payment services as well as competition in the market.

The CPSA has also been given the authority to distribute licences to third parties, such as payment providers and processors, to operate on the Chinese market. No licences have been distributed as of yet, but experts expect that to happen soon.

Online payments are growing rapidly in China, but, to date, there has been little regulation of the industry. In June 2010, the PBC decided that non-financial institutions involved in payment services should obtain third party payment licences. Although 32 companies have applied so far, no third party has been granted a licence yet.

Michiel Willems, 2011. Published previously in a London based magazine. Picture:  newsroom.sebgroup.com

UK Payments Council works on new mobile account-to-account scheme

UK banks are developing a system that would allow British customers to transfer money between accounts from different banks by using their mobile phones. 

The UK Payments Council (UKPC), which represents the UK banking industry, has started “to explore how a mobile can help customers make a payment from one account to another,” said Gary Hinock, Acting Chief Executive of the UKPC.

Whether British customers will embrace this system depends on “whether or not there is demand for mobile payments,” said Samee Zafar, Director at Edgar Dunn & Co. “I believe there is, but if you look at the history of consumer products there is hardly anything that can be compared to the growth in m-devices.”

“For industry wide adoption to work effectively, we need a unified solution on both the front and the back ends,” said David Divitt, Consultant at ACI. “Most issues with the adoption of new systems arise because they are not designed with the end user as the primary focus.” 

Zafar added that “consumer acceptance is never achieved with great technology alone. It requires critical mass investments in raising awareness, marketing, consumer education, and incentives, and let us not forget merchants, who are equally important and will need to be fully on board.”

Hinock stressed that “security is a priority for us,” but  predicts that, ultimately, “the wallet might drop off its top spot in the not too distant future”.

Michiel Willems, 2011. Published previously in a London based magazine. Pciture: Lloyds TSB.

Less porn and violence for most Australians

Australian ISPs to block more than 500 sites

Two of Australia’s largest internet service providers (ISPs) have agreed to block over 500 websites, it was announced. Telstra and Optus - by far the largest ISPs in Australia - as well as smaller ISPs itExtreme and Webshield, have decided to block all websites listed on the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s ‘Refused Classification’ (RC) list of offending websites. 

Websites that are put on the RC list contain material that is banned for ‘sale, hire or public exhibition,’ because the content contains ‘matters of sex, drugs misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standard of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults’. 

The Australian Government has made a number of failed attempts to introduce internet filters in order to fight child pornography, extreme violence and illegal gambling. This latest move by Australia’s largest ISPs means that ‘most Australian internet users will have their web access censored,’ the Australian news website news.com.au wrote.

Some recent radio broadcasts for Radio 1 in the Netherlands - in Dutch. If you click on the links, my items start straight away.

•  http://player.omroep.nl/?aflID=12731989&start=01:00:45

•  http://player.omroep.nl/?aflID=12750828&start=00:59:03

www.radio1.nl
www.bnntoday.nl

Tickets for the London 2012 Olympics

My radio 1 broadcast from last week, about the Olympic tickets uproar in the British capital - in Dutch. 

My section starts straight away. Click HERE

www.radio1.nl

 

On the internet, everyone has got a name

What’s in a name?

If you want to circumvent a so-called ‘super-injection’ - a UK gagging order to prevent certain information from becoming public - it seems the internet has become the place to be. Many legal experts, judges and lawmakers are struggling with this dilemma after a confusing month in which a former model and a well-known football player made the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

On 29 May, The Sunday Times reported that only six hours after football player Ryan Giggs had obtained a super injection - to prevent his extra-marital affair from becoming public - a bank worker named James Webley had tweeted ‘so if Ryan Giggs wanted to cover up a hypothetical affair with Big Brother’s Imogen Thomas would that be a super-injunction or a regular one’. Within hours, this was ‘re-tweeted’ by thousands and the footballer’s name was out.

Theoretically, Webley can be accused of contempt of court. He could be fined, his assets seized or even face jail time, but more than seven weeks after he tweeted his message, on 14 April, officers have still not knocked on his door and experts believe it is not likely that is going to happen. Thousands of Twitter users - among them famous names like journalist Piers Morgan and singer Boy George - have mentioned the footballer in their online messages and it would be an impossible task to prosecute them all. On top of that, Member of Parliament John Hemming mentioned Giggs in Parliament and it did not really come as a surprise when Prime Minister Cameron said he felt ‘uneasy’ about super-injunctions and believed judges were developing a privacy law without Parliament's say so.

But it works both ways. While hiding your dirty laundry might have become nearly impossible, remaining anonymous on the net is also increasingly difficult. The Superior Court of California recently forced Twitter to hand over the personal details of a number of its account holders who had allegedly posted libellous statements about South Tyneside Council. The UK Council went to the California Court - who has jurisdiction over US-based Twitter - to find out who was behind an account called ‘Mr Monkey’.

Apart from the question whether tax money should be spent on defending the reputation of a few local councillors, the ruling has paved the way for many from outside the US to identify anonymous bloggers. Experts believe this ruling can have huge implications for users of social networking sites and many wonder whether this verdict signals the end of anonymous blogging, because if it works with Twitter, why not with (US-based) Facebook, Blogspot, MySpace or any other website where people can publish public messages on a daily basis under a fake name. Experts fear many US lawyers will try to find out the names behind anonymous posts so they can sue the bloggers on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis. 

When the internet emerged, many praised - and feared - the new medium for the fact that on the web ‘no one knows who or where you are’. This no longer seems to apply. Whether you are a famous ‘adulterous’ footballer or just a critical voter in a sleepy town, everyone’s got a name.

Michiel Willems, 2011. Published previously in the June issue of a London based magazine. Copyrights apply at all times. Image 1: blogs.lessthandot.com. Image 2: itsessential.ca

Modern Britain: fame-obsessed?

In the UK, more people vote in TV talent shows than for their country's leaders, perhaps a symptom of Britain's growing obsession with fame and celebrity. In London's thriving creative industry, many of those so-called celebrities base their fame on little more than the ability to sing a jolly tune, look good in tight trousers or kick a ball, often not even in the right direction.

Has Modern Britain become a nation obsessed with celebrity and fame? How tacky and raunchy is the UK?

My radio 1 broadcast from last week - in Dutch. The item starts straight away.

http://player.omroep.nl/?aflID=12668370&start=01:06:00

www.radio1.nl

Pippa Middleton

A recent item about Pippa Middleton, for Radio 1 in Holland. If you click on the link HERE my item starts straight away - in Dutch.

www.radio1.nl

California Court orders Twitter to hand over data to local UK council

The UK Council of South Tyneside confirmed it has received personal data from the social networking website Twitter after the Superior Court of California ordered the website on 30 May to identify five of its users who had allegedly posted libelous statements about several South Tyneside Council Members.

Twitter has handed over names, IP and email addresses as well as phone numbers. Although “these proceedings have become routine in the US, this is the first time somebody from this country has actually gone to America to force Twitter to release the identities of individuals”, said Mark Stephens, Partner at Finers Stephens Innocent (left). “Given the outcome of this case I definitely expect others to follow.” Ashley Hurst, Senior Associate at Olswang, agreed with that: “[this case] may well encourage others to bring similar actions”.


The lawyers for Ryan Giggs, the footballer who was recently exposed on Twitter despite having taken out a court order to prevent an extra-marital affair from becoming public “could now go to the courts in California to get the identities of the persons behind the Twitter accounts that exposed him”, Stephens said. He does not think the (British) bloggers who exposed Giggs will be prosecuted in the UK since “no one has the stomach for it”. Stephens added that “anonymous blogging is still possible, but has certainly become much more difficult if you are not a web professional”. Hurst added: “This case demonstrates how anonymous internet users are not always as anonymous as they think.”

Michiel Willems, 2011. Published previously in a London based magazine. Copyrights apply at al times. Pictures: South Tyneside Council and BBC news website.

www.twitter.com/michielwil

Holland about to go 'net neutral'

The Netherlands is about to pass a Bill that would guarantee its citizens net neutrality. On 24 May, the Dutch Minister for Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, Maxime Verhagen, announced in the Tweede Kamer, the Dutch House of Representatives, that he would amend the Dutch Telecoms Act, as proposed by a Member of Parliament a week earlier.

Under the new Telecoms Bill, internet service providers (ISPs) and mobile phone companies would be barred from limiting heavy-bandwith applications and would not be allowed to charge users extra to use online voice applications - such as Skype or Whatsupp - which has been common practice in Holland. The Bill would also prevent ISPs or mobile operators from selectively blocking or slowing certain applications.

If the legislation passes, which is considered a formality because of the Dutch coalition government structure, the Netherlands would become the first country in Europe - and the second in the world after Chile - to arrange net neutrality by law. The concept of net neutrality means that all internet traffic should be treated equally by ISPs and telecom operators. Although the final text is still being discussed, most lawmakers have already given their support for the new Bill.

“It might prove difficult to properly scope the proposed legal ban”, said Peter Eijsvoogel, Partner at Allen & Overy. “If we call the emergency services, we do not want our lines to be blocked by teenagers calling a game show.”

The proposals “may have a significant impact on the way in which mobile operators can deal with the effects of over-the-top apps like What's App and Skype, which have been eating away their core revenues substantially”, said Quinten Kroes, Partner at Brinkhof. “Indirectly, it may impact their ability and willingness to invest in new infrastructure, like 4G.”

Minister Verhagen is in talks with the European Commission (EC) to “ensure that the amendment does not interfere with EU regulations”, said Ministry Spokesman Edwin van Scherrenburg.

Matthijs van Bergen, a legal advisor at ICT Recht thinks “it really is a shame that [the EC] has not lived up to its task to adequately implement net neutrality into the regulatory framework and to effectively harmonise Member States' laws”. Van Bergen does, however, expect other European countries to follow soon: “Politicians in Belgium are also working on a law of their own”.

Michiel Willems, 2011. Published previously in a London based magazine. Copyrights apply at all times.

China tightens grip on the internet

New agency to monitor the net

China has set up a new agency that is going to monitor and regulate the country’s internet traffic. State-controlled news agency Xinhua quoted on June 5 a government statement, saying that the powers of different ministries have been brought together to form the State Internet Information Office (SIIO), which ‘will direct, coordinate and supervise online content management and handle administrative approval of businesses related to online news reporting’.

Xinhua added that the SIIO will ‘direct the development’ of online gaming, online video and audio businesses and online publication industries. The SIIO will also actively promote state-approved news websites, and has been assigned powers to investigate and punish websites that violate Chinese internet and telecommunications laws. The SIIO will control internet service providers to ‘improve the management of registration of domain names, distribution of IP addresses, registration of websites and internet access’.

Fighting pornography

The Chinese Government has also introduced new requirements to set up a website. New registrations will only be successful if the website owners identify themselves and justify the content of the proposed website to regulators. According to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the measures are designed to fight pornography, but many consider the move as the latest attempt to tighten control over China's online community, which, with its 380 million users, is the largest and fastest growing online market in the world. Since December, tens of thousands of websites have been shut down, while the registration of new websites has been suspended.

Under the new plans,

websites without government records

will be made inaccessible by the end of September. It is hard to believe this move is merely designed to tackle online pornography, unless the Chinese Government considers hundreds of thousands of consumer, informative and chat pages as too exciting for its people.

Online gambling

The Chinese Government has also announced it is planning another major crackdown on online gambling and gaming websites, hugely popular in the country."Legalisation of gambling in China will have a long way to go", said Natasha Xie, Partner at Jun He Law Offices in Hong Kong. "Some people hope to see the government's intention to speed up, by this type of crackdown, the legalisation process of gambling, but they would probably be disappointed."

One of the reasons why China is stepping up its efforts to close down online gambling operations is the vast amount of money flowing out of the country. With the development of the internet, the online gambling market has grown significantly in the last few years. "My opinion is that this law is focused on money, transporting illegal proceeds across the border," said a Xi'an based lawyer who wishes to remain anonymous.

Michiel Willems, 2011. Copyrights apply. Pictures mtholyoke.edu (1), myself (2), myself (3) and dailybuzz.com (4).

FBI crackdown on online poker: double pain, double gain

On 15 April, the FBI launched the biggest crackdown on online poker in the US since the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) came into force in 2006. The targets were those operators who have continued to accept payments from US residents on their websites since the implementation of the UIGEA.

PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker have been charged with alleged bank fraud, money laundering and illegal gambling. Eleven individuals are accused of manipulating banks into processing around $3 billion in illegal gambling revenue. ‘Black Friday’ has sent shockwaves through the online gambling industry and it was undoubtedly a dark day for online poker players in the US.

However, operators who do not focus on the US market could not believe their luck. Many European gambling businesses saw their shares soar, such as Bwin (up 30%), Playtech (8%) and 888 (19%), as investors bet on high-value players, processors and affiliates switching to safer sites that are currently not subject to criminal investigations.

The seizure and interruption of money streams have also made it harder for PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker to remain at their liquidity levels, which is again not very appealing for players and investors alike. The three operators in question are trying to assure customers that safety is not an issue. Non-US players, however, have become nervous and wonder if their money is still safe. Many players and investors do not want to take any risks after last week’s developments. They have come to realise their funds are only truly safe in a regulatory climate that does not define online gambling as a criminal activity. Although the jump in share prices might be short-lived - many experts believe the market will stabilise to normal standards within a few months - the non-US focused operators are expected to benefit in the long term as well.

Some experts believe the latest FBI action is a way of clearing out some of the difficult issues in order to make regulation of online poker in the US easier. Cleaning up the mess before the American online gambling landscape can be re-organised, since there is a strong feeling in many US quarters (including the DoJ, obviously) that the three accused businesses should not benefit from their illegal activities and any attempt on their part to continue to do business, or even to sell their assets, should be blocked, so if the US would allow a number of operators back in at some point, the three accused companies will not be on top of the list to qualify for a licence. The accused operators could have pulled out earlier by opting for a fine and a non-prosecution agreement, like Sportingbet did in the past. Its agreement with the DoJ in September 2010 specifically stated that the deal is no bar to Sportingbet entering the US market if and when such activities become legal.

The DoJ and a number of Senators have indicated in the past that operators who pulled out of the market in 2006 should be favourites to obtain a US licence, when the US Government allows such activities on its digital soil. It seems therefore that the three accused companies have not just lost today, but also tomorrow. It is not just one round that was lost, it’s game over, at least in the US.

Michiel Willems (c) 2011. Published previously in World Online Gambling Law Report. Copyrights apply at all times.

Point of no return for Digital Economy Act

London - UK internet service providers (ISPs) BT and TalkTalk have suffered a heavy blow in their battle against the implementation of the Digital Economy Act (DEA) in its current form, after the UK High Court ruled on 20 April that the most important elements of the DEA comply with EU law.

The controversial law, aimed at protecting the rights of copyright holders on the internet, does not conflict with any EU legislation or case law, Justice Kenneth Parker ruled.

BT and TalkTalk had challenged the DEA in court, because they detest a part of the DEA under which ISPs can be forced to disconnect users if intellectual property right holders believe their rights have been violated. The two large providers find it unreasonable that ISPs are being made responsible for the behaviour of individual users and could soon be forced to monitor their customers online.

BT and TalkTalk tried to convince the Court that the DEA breaches users’ right over the protection of personal data, but Judge Parker would not have it. He stated that information obtained from IP addresses - to locate and identify users - is personal data, but that it is acceptable for intellectual property right holders to use this information in case their rights are violated.

Justice Parker did rule that the DEA was unlawful in making ISPs responsible for certain implementation and enforcements costs; he decided ISPs will no longer have to pay for Ofcom - the UK media and internet regulator - to establish an appeals body, although the obligation to pay a share to help run the appeals system remains, as well as 25% of the costs of letters that are going to be sent to potential copyright infringers.

But this part of Parker’s ruling turned out to be insignificant when BT and TalkTalk’s main argument - that the DEA would mean a restriction of internet freedom - was wiped off the table. Parker ruled ‘Parliament has struck a balance’ between the protection of copyright and giving the public the right to access free content. He admitted ‘existing copyright legislation may strike that balance in a way that is controversial or open to criticism’ but he continued by saying that ‘in my view, Parliament, does strike a fair balance’. When BT and TalkTalk heard those words, they realised the game was up.

The 20 April ruling is a bitter disappointment for ISPs since it paves the way for the DEA to be implemented in its current form. Ofcom is in the process of writing a new code that will clarify the practical implementation of the obligation for ISPs to shut down users after they have received complaints from right holders, and after Parker’s ruling, there is nothing that can realistically stop Ofcom from doing so.

Some experts believe Justice Parker was getting a bit too political when he said ‘the DEA represents a more efficient, focused and fair system than the current arrangements’. BT and TalkTalk, like many other ISPs, obviously disagree, but there is not much they can do about it anymore. They have practically run out of options so it seems a new copyright regime with ISPs policing the web will soon be a reality.

TalkTalk, however, vowed not to give up and is considering taking the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The ISP released a defiant statement: ‘We may have lost this particular battle, but we will continue fighting’.

Their statement came even before the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee announced on 3 May it will drop its investigation into the DEA. The Committee said that ‘in light of recent court action’ it will not longer investigate whether the DEA is the right mechanism to protect copyright on the internet.

Obviously, TalkTalk is done talking, when it becomes impossible to put your money where your mouth is.

Michiel Willems (C) 2011. Published previously in E-Commerce May issue. Copyrights apply at all times.