Good Honest Dollar $$

Slot machines in the Trump Taj Mahal (India) (Image via Wikipedia)

I have a considerable degree of empathy for those who suffer from a gambling addiction, especially in these challenging economic times.

But the idea of gamblers being able to sue casinos for losses which they incur as a result of their gambling activities is simply a load of rubbish, and I certainly hope that current attempts by an Australian high flyer who is trying to do just that get the treatment they deserve within the judicial system.

 
The case in brief
Full details of the case can be seen here. In short, it involves a high flying property developer, by the name of Harry Kakavas who is attempting to sue Crown Casino, a Melbourne (Australia) based casino, for losses incurred as a result of his gambling activities over a sixteen month period in 2005 and 2006.

Mr. Kakavas, who lost roughly 30 million Australian dollars (roughly $USD 23 million)  over a sixteen month period (including, at one stage, 2 million Australian dollars in the space of forty-three minutes), claims that Crown mad extensive efforts to facilitate and encourage his gambling behavior despite knowing that he suffered from a pathological gambling addition.

 
You can’t be serious
Difficult to believe though it is, apparently this is no joke, and neither Mr. Kakavas or his lawyers are mucking around.

That said, I find it somewhat difficult to take his arguments seriously.

Compulsive gambler or not, surely the idea that a gambler should be able to just sue the casino after choosing to blow all their money on a few bad bets is beyond any form of comprehension whatsoever.

Punters take the bet – they keep all their winnings and accept responsibility for their losses.

It’s simple and fair, and those unwilling to accept their losses should simply not bet.

 
Yes, gambling is addictive ..
Don’t get me wrong, I have a considerable degree of empathy for those who suffer from a gambling addiction. Like alcohol, gambling can be addictive, and the development of problems relation to compulsive behavior in this regard can happen to the best of us.

Because of this, it is right that casinos and other forms of gaming venues are subject to an especially high level of scrutiny with respect to their conduct, and under no circumstances whatsoever should they attempt to promote or encourage compulsive or irresponsible behavior in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

If indeed Crown did take steps specific steps to encourage the behavior of Mr. Kakavas (as is alleged by Mr. Kakavas but denied by Crown), then yes, such behavior was somewhat irresponsible and should not be condoned in any way.

 
.. but consumers have responsibilities as well
But businesses, in this case casinos, are not the only ones who face obligations with respect to the need for responsible conduct.

Consumers also have a responsibility, and at some point, I believe that each and every person must take personal responsibility for his or her own consumption related behavior.

In the case of gambling, consumers are not forced to frequent the premises of gambling related venues. Nor are they forced to place bets or to keep betting after sustaining a certain amount of losses.

No – these are consumer choices, and individual consumers must assume responsibility for the outcomes of their behavior.

Not only would forcing casinos to compensate punters for their own mistakes place the business operations of the casino concerned in undue jeopardy, it would also be entirely unfair.

 
Sending the wrong message
As a final point, allowing consumers to sue casinos for losses incurred whilst gambling sends completely the wrong message with respect to the need for responsible consumer behavior.

It would send the message that consumers do not need to take responsibility for their own actions, that it’s Ok to not to consume products or services which are on offer and that someone else (the manufacturer or service provider) can be blamed whenever you run into trouble.

This is not a positive message. Instead the message should read:

“You are responsible for your own consumer choices. You bet – you lose – your problem.”

What should be done about internet users who continually download pirated material over the internet?

A French proposal to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to suspend their broadband access sounds fair to me.

However, I would have some reservations about the cost burden which such a proposal would place on ISPs and the consumers that they serve.

 
The proposed new law
A proposed new law in France would require ISPs to terminate the accounts of users who download material subject to copyright protection in an illegal fashion on a repetitive basis.

Under the proposed new law, ISPs would be required to:

(a) reveal the identities of users who download copyrighted material;
(b) provide such users with two written warnings, (first by email and then by registered mail;
(c) cut off broadband access for a period of up to twelve months for users whose offences continued; and
(d) place such users on a blacklist in order to prevent them from subscribing to other broadband services.

Apparently, similar measures are under consideration in both Italy and Britain, although Germany rejected comparable proposals on the grounds of privacy concerns (refer report).

 
Illegal downloads are a real problem
Whilst some may not see it this way, the practice of downloading pirated copies of music and videos does represent a breach of ethics on the part of consumers.

Artists have every right to receive their full entitlement with respect to royalty income from their output. So too do recording studios and record labels, no matter how big or rich they might be. Piracy prevents this from happening.

In addition, illegal downloads also add to the cost of music and videos to those consumers who purchase the product in a proper legal fashion. Such consumers should not have to subsidize those who are unwilling to pay the small amount of money required for legal purchases.

Moreover, the consequences of piracy are real. In the U.S, the National Centre for Policy Analysis estimates that piracy results in the loss of: (a) $58 billion in annual output; (b) 373,375 jobs; (c) $16.3 billion of employee earnings; and (d) $2.6 billion (annually) in lost taxes (refer report).

 
Should the French proposal go ahead?
From my viewpoint, the French proposal would appear to have a considerable degree of merit.

Piracy is a real problem and must be stopped, but tackling the problem at the level of individual users is not a realistic option. Instead, I would certainly imagine that the problem can be tackled more efficiently and effectively at the level of the ISP.

Resistance to the proposal on the part of internet users may be somewhat understandable, particularly given the strong feelings of many against government intervention in terms of internet access and growing fears about ISPs becoming ‘gatekeepers’ of the net.

But internet access is a privilege, not a right, and those who use it have a responsibility to do so in a responsible fashion. This does not include illegal downloads of pirated music or videos.

My only two concerns with the French proposal would be cost (a) whether or not the policy could be effectively enforced; and (b) whether any benefits arising out of improvements in piracy control were sufficient to justify the cost burden which such measures would impose upon ISPs and the consumers that they serve.

Unfortunately, on these points, I am not really in a position to make an informed judgment.

That said, the French proposal is certainly the best strategy which I have heard of so far.

What do you think?

Unfortunately, I was not able to post the next discussion in the series about employee rights as per my regular schedule this week. I will post a further entry with respect to that series next week.

Today I would like to comment upon an area of shopping behavior which I find frankly appalling – the stampede from shoppers at Wal-Mart store in Long Island yesterday which resulted in the tragic death of Jdimitai Damour, a worker 34 year old casual employee at the Long Island store who was crushed in the mayhem.

This incident was not merely an unfortunate accident resulting from an innocent practice - it was a tragic death resulting from the wreckless behavior of people who have more concern about getting a bargain than for the safety of those around them.

Some may view this type of practice as being a tradition on Black Friday. But, it is a stupid tradition and further accidents, injuries and deaths are bound to happen as long as the practice continues.

Any failure on the part of shoppers to enter a store in an orderly fashion represents a flagrant disregard for the safety of staff and of other patrons. So what if shoppers miss the best bargains? Surely, getting a bargain is hardly worth subjecting others to unnecessary risk of serious injury.

You can hardly expect Wal-Mart to take ethics seriously when this is the example that its customers set.