<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>All Your Internet Gambling Domain Belong To Kentucky. (Trees And Things)</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938</link>
<description>Kentucky Governor &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://governor.ky.gov/">Steve Beshear&lt;/a> believes the only place Kentuckians should be able to gamble are brick and mortar casinos. &#160;The fact that the state doesn't have any of those yet isn't stopping Beshear from trying to put the kabosh on internet gambling. &#160;His approach is a piece of pure Americana - take internet gambling sites to court to get a judge to &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/533470.html">order them to block Kent</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:33:00 EST</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:09:34 EST</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>MC Nally: Re: All Your Internet Gambling Domain Belong To Ke</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938#10</link>
<description>&lt;blockquote>I think you mean Jim Beam.&lt;/blockquote>You're right.. &#160;Jack Daniels is Tenessee-based, now that you remind me, and we're talking about a Kentucky politician. &#160;Principle's still the same, though..</description>
<pubDate>Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:09:34 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>LostBoyJim: Re: All Your Internet Gambling Domain Belong To Ke</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938#9</link>
<description>I think you mean Jim Beam.</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:53:22 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>MC Nally: Re: All Your Internet Gambling Domain Belong To Ke</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938#8</link>
<description>I'd just love to see Beshear's reaction should Saudi religious police demand control over the Jack Daniels distillery's domain names.&lt;p>&#10;In any case, messing with this is a bad idea. &#160;The U.S. has already had its ass handed to it by Antigua in a WTO d</description>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:55:31 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: All Your Internet Gambling Domain Belong To Ke</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938#7</link>
<description>Huh, I had no idea. I just always assumed it was illegal for various reasons but I guess that's &lt;a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/1559/Is_online_gambling_legal.html">incorrect&lt;/a>. I'll have to amend my statement to say that it'</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:39:28 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>DEMachina: Re: jurisdiction</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938#6</link>
<description>That's true, and it's also unfortunately a result of the lack of technological know-how among judges.</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:58:22 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>wetkarma: Re: All Your Internet Gambling Domain Belong To Ke</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938#5</link>
<description>&lt;i>&lt;br>&#10;Internet gambling is not "unregulated" in America. It's illegal. &lt;/i>&lt;p>&#10;Nitpick/nuanced point here. But I though that internet gambling was legal HOWEVER banks/credit card companies were not allowed to process transactions related to internet gamb</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:17:57 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>gerrymander: Re: All Your Internet Gambling Domain Belong To Ke</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938#4</link>
<description>The .com domain infrastructure is entirely controlled by VeriSign, which is headquartered in California. There might be an argument that this qualifies as a "doing business as" legal identifier in the United States (I've done no research to confirm that), </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:38:42 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: jurisdiction</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938#3</link>
<description>It's not just a matter of legal jurisdiction. It's also a matter of physical leverage. (Which is both why they don't have legal jurisdiction and because they don't have legal jurisdiction.) There's simply nothing Kentucky could possibly do to compel any of</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:59:28 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>thefadd: Re: All Your Internet Gambling Domain Belong To Ke</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938#2</link>
<description>From the second link:&#13;&#10;&lt;p>&#13;&#10;&lt;i>Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate ordered the names transferred to the state last week, Gov. Steve Beshear announced Monday. Sites affected include such names as caribbeangold.com and sportsbook.com. If officials get thei</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:52:16 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>DEMachina: jurisdiction</title>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2008/9/23/162315/938#1</link>
<description>From a legal standpoint, this is an interesting jurisdictional question, and one that is going to be fought over a lot in the future.&lt;p>&#10;In general, a state court can only get jurisdiction over people or things within its borders (long-arm statutes expand </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:48:13 EST</pubDate>
</item>

<textInput>
<title>Search Trees And Things</title>
<description></description>
<name>string</name>
<link>http://www.treesandthings.com/search/</link>
</textInput>

</channel>
</rss>