How does modern Wall St. work in NYS gambling laws? The New York State Constitution §9, mostly reprinted below, tightly restricts gambling. The definition, as written by the legislature, is also reprinted below. DraftKings and FanDuel ask players to predict the sum performance of various statistics of professional athletes, with potential to win even large amounts of money in (mostly) pay-to-play arrangements. Like John Oliver, the NY Attorney General appears to be of the opinion that this constitutes illegal gambling. Wall St. trading is also often compared to gambling, and there are plenty of firms completely based on trying to predict the supposedly-random movement of numbers. Valuations of companies are supposedly based in part on performance metrics, the predictability of which are at least somewhat comparable to performance statistics of professional athletes. (Those with special inside information on the statistics aren't allowed to trade on it, under insider trading rules). If I bet that &lt;insert team here&gt; would win their next contest, how different is that from betting that Apple will win its next patent dispute, or that Home Depot will beat expectations this quarter, that the price of oil will go up, that some particular derivatives spread will converge in a certain way, or any of the many other things I could bet on in the stock market? How is betting on the aggregation of certain statistics about the future performance of professional athletes so different from betting on the aggregation of certain statistics about the future performance of professional business or fund managers? In a market where a "a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a newspaper’s financial pages could select a portfolio that would do just as well as one carefully selected by experts," but where most daily fantasy sports winnings go to a small percentage of players who carefully select their teams based on lots of information,* why is the latter considered less a game of skill than the former? Especially if the daily fantasy sports sites are illegal gambling prohibited under the state constitution, how are Wall St. activities all permitted by these restrictions in the state constitution? New York State Constitution §9, emphasis added. (1) contains the primary restrictions. (2) is an exception, reprinted here only to show that it doesn't seem to answer the question. ... [E]xcept as hereinafter provided, no lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, book-making, or any other kind of gambling, except lotteries operated by the state and the sale of lottery tickets in connection therewith as may be authorized and prescribed by the legislature , the net proceeds of which shall be applied exclusively to or in aid or support of education in this state as the legislature may prescribe, and except pari-mutual betting on horse races as may be prescribed by the legislature and from which the state shall derive a reasonable revenue for the support of government, shall hereafter be authorized or allowed within this state; and the legislature shall pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any of the provisions of this section. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, any city, town or village within the state may by an approving vote of the majority of the qualified electors in such municipality voting on a proposition therefor submitted at a general or special election authorize, subject to state legislative supervision and control, the conduct of one or both of the following categories of games of chance commonly known as: (a) bingo or lotto, in which prizes are awarded on the basis of designated numbers or symbols on a card conforming to numbers or symbols selected at random; (b) games in which prizes are awarded on the basis of a winning number or numbers, color or colors, or symbol or symbols determined by chance from among those previously selected or played, whether determined as the result of the spinning of a wheel, a drawing or otherwise by chance. If authorized, such games shall be subject to the following restrictions, among others which may be prescribed by the legislature: (1) only bona fide religious, charitable or non-profit organizations of veterans, volunteer firefighter and similar non-profit organizations shall be permitted to conduct such games; (2) the entire net proceeds of any game shall be exclusively devoted to the lawful purposes of such organizations; (3) no person except a bona fide member of any such organization shall participate in the management or operation of such game; and (4) no person shall receive any remuneration for participating in the management or operation of any such game. Unless otherwise provided by law, no single prize shall exceed two hundred fifty dollars, nor shall any series of prizes on one occasion aggregate more than one thousand dollars. The legislature shall pass appropriate laws to effectuate the purposes of this subdivision, ensure that such games are rigidly regulated to prevent commercialized gambling, prevent participation by criminal and other undesirable elements and the diversion of funds from the purposes authorized hereunder and establish a method by which a municipality which has authorized such games may rescind or revoke such authorization. Unless permitted by the legislature, no municipality shall have the power to pass local laws or ordinances relating to such games. Nothing in this section shall prevent the legislature from passing laws more restrictive than any of the provisions of this section. (Amendment approved by vote of the people November 7, 1939; further amended by vote of the people November 5, 1957; November 8, 1966; November 4, 1975; November 6, 1984; November 6, 2001.) In apparent support of the last clause of §9.1 above, NY Penal Law §225.00 sets the following definitions: "Contest of chance" means any contest, game, gaming scheme or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein. "Gambling." A person engages in gambling when he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. ... "Something of value" means any money or property, any token, object or article exchangeable for money or property, or any form of credit or promise directly or indirectly contemplating transfer of money or property or of any interest therein, or involving extension of a service, entertainment or a privilege of playing at a game or scheme without charge. ... "Bookmaking" means advancing gambling activity by unlawfully accepting bets from members of the public as a business, rather than in a casual or personal fashion, upon the outcomes of future contingent events. "Lottery" means an unlawful gambling scheme in which (a) the players pay or agree to pay something of value for chances, represented and differentiated by numbers or by combinations of numbers or by some other media, one or more of which chances are to be designated the winning ones; and (b) the winning chances are to be determined by a drawing or by some other method based upon the element of chance; and (c) the holders of the winning chances are to receive something of value provided, however, that in no event shall the provisions of this subdivision be construed to include a raffle as such term is defined in subdivision three-b of section one hundred eighty-six of the general municipal law. "Policy" or "the numbers game" means a form of lottery in which the winning chances or plays are not determined upon the basis of a drawing or other act on the part of persons conducting or connected with the scheme, but upon the basis of the outcome or outcomes of a future contingent event or events otherwise unrelated to the particular scheme. "Unlawful" means not specifically authorized by law. (*): The Attorney General of NY seems to point out that daily fantasy games involve a significant degree of skill, in claiming as part (f) of their cease-and-desist letter to DraftKings, that the site misrepresents the degree of skill involved in advertisements about the likelihood that an ordinary player will win a jackpot. John Oliver makes the same point at greater length here.
The stock exchange deals in two broad types of things: shares in companies (or other organisations) and derivatives. The first is easy to deal with: buying and selling shares is not gambling - ownership of part of the company passes from seller to buyer. The value that they agree on represents their valuation of the company at the time of the trade; into this will factor all sorts of things that are speculative and ill-defined. However, this is no different from people agreeing on the price of a block of land, a ship or a prize bull - each party evaluates their expected future income stream and decides if they will agree to that price. Derivative trade, however, can be shown to be financially identical to gambling. However, just because things are identical in one field (finance) does not make them identical in another (law). Derivative trade is legal; gambling isn't. Why? Because derivative trade is not legally a subset of gambling.
This kind of quotation, for commentary, criticism, or reference, is generally allowed without obtaining permission. In the US, this falls under fair use (see 17 USC 107. In the UK and most commonwealth countries, it falls under fair dealing. In other countries there are various exceptions to copyright that will probably cover this. Even answers that do not directly quote the rule books often use information from those rulebooks to write an answer. Facts and ideas are never protected by copyright, so this is not going to be an issue. See 17 USC 102(b), which provides: (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. As a comment by user Trish reminds, game rules are facts and are not protected, although their exact wording may be.
You are mostly mistaken. Prior to the enactment of the STOCK Act in 2012 (as amended in 2013), insider trading by members of Congress based upon information obtained in their official duties was legal. This is no longer the case, but there is no private cause of action to enforce the STOCK Act. Instead, the principal means by which violations are enforced is via a federal criminal prosecution which is something that the Justice Department is very reluctant to direct at a member of Congress. There are at least two barriers to such prosecutions, in addition to the political issues involved with having an agency prosecute members of the body that funds it and regulates it: To bring a case here, however, federal authorities must overcome two obstacles: the Speech and Debate Clause, and proving “materiality” in novel circumstances. Indeed, the announcement that the authorities have closed their investigations into three senators may show these obstacles already have proven too steep. As a result, it is hard to bring federal criminal cases against members of Congress (or their aides) to enforce the STOCK Act, so it is much more toothless than it seems on the surface. The further fact that a security is structured as an Exchange Traded Fund (ETF), however, is not itself necessarily all that much of a barrier to insider trading criminal liability for members of Congress, beyond the barriers already noted. This is because many ETFs are focused on something less than the total securities market. If a member of Congress, for example, has inside information on something that will impact the entire manufacturing industry, that member of Congress can engaged in insider trading in an ETF pertinent to that industry. Similarly, if a member of Congress gains advanced insight about an imminent war in Latin America, the member of Congress could engage in insider trading in connection with a Latin American securities ETF. There is no requirement that insider trading be restricted to, or focused upon, a single issuer of securities (i.e. it does not have to be limited to stocks or bonds in a single corporation).
...due to the international registration of multiple domains to generate ad revenue by recycling stories across sock puppet networks, giving the impression of multiple, independent companies. None of that is illegal on its face. Internet domains are freely registerable by anyone, anywhere (with the exception of some laws in some nations that restrict such Internet-related activity), and registered privately or publicly, and websites can be hosted anywhere. Writing articles and "spinning" and copying articles (even if that writing is sales gibberish in broken English) among the same copyright owner is legal, and using the same design and layout for a network of sites is legal. The formation of multiple, related companies and shell companies to give the impression that companies are separate and independent is legal (again, with the exception of some business and corporate laws in some nations that restrict such activity). These are all common business practices. Some business practices may appear to be unethical - trying to fool customers in order to make money and get clicks and sell ads. And what you may be feeling is that such activity is unethical. And that's OK. But feeling that they are unethical doesn't make the practices illegal. Many common activities that are considered to be unethical are illegal; but not all. Buyer beware. One way some of that activity may be illegal is if those articles are factually incorrect and promote quack medical treatments, are financial scams requiring payments, are gambling sites or promote other clearly illegal things. But then you get into the complexity of exactly how they are illegal, which jurisdictions are involved, and on and on.
The order itself is here. It applies to &quot;any United States person&quot;, which includes citizens, LPRs, entities with a US basis, and any other person in the US including tourists. It applies to transactions, and not static possession. There is no exception to the effect that &quot;you can trade as long as it's not on the NYSE&quot;, and it says Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited The order is not just directed at brokers, or the NYSE, it applies to everybody / everything everywhere, if you are a US person. Apparently there was some unclarity on the OTC question, which was clarified by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, to the effect that it includes OTC trading.
I don't think the issue is that it is a violation of a law, but rather that it is a violation of the terms of service you agree to when you sign up for the site - which is a breach of contract. You can be sued for breach of contract, if the site can prove any damages based on your breach. So if you use a bot to make money on a site, in violation of the site's license agreement, then I believe the site could indeed sue you to get the money back. Also, the phrasing of your question ("creating a robot") raises a separate issue. It is not actually creating the bot that is illegal, but using it where not allowed can be a violation of contract. Suppose person A makes a poker bot, just as a programming exercise, and doesn't use it. But then suppose person B uses the robot created by person A on a site that forbids it. Although this could be a gray area, I do not believe the site would have any recourse against person A (even though they probably would against person B).
The future prospects are negligible, and the present status of such influence is non-existent. In a few cases, you may find an appellate decision citing some statement from a reputable law review. Here is an article that addresses such influences on SCOTUS (which, the authors note, have decreased over time). However, you are describing a wingnut legal theory, and courts do not rely on wingnut legal theories, they rely on what the actual law is.
Section 3(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Unauthorised Lottery (Prevention) Act of 1995 states that.. No personal shall promote or conduct any lottery... No distinction is made in the Act between physical and on-line lotteries, but whether this law is actually enforceable for using non-jurisdictional websites will depend on the circumstances and available evidence - which is another (and potentially off topic) question. https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/state-acts-rules/state-laws/uttar-pradesh-unauthorised-lottery-prevention-act-1995/