These earlier posts discuss the high cost of the government’s prohibition of internet gambling, but this Sallie James/TCS Daily op-ed reports that those costs are about ready to go up another level entirely:

On March 30, a World Trade Organization tribunal handed down a potentially significant finding against U.S. restrictions on internet gambling.
The panel was set up at the request of Antigua and Barbuda, who complained that the United States had not complied with the WTO’s earlier decision that it must change the way it regulates gambling over the internet. The previous ruling, in April 2005, found that while the United States was within its rights to restrict the import of goods and services on “public morals” grounds, as it had argued in its defense, those rules must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. If the United States finds online gambling offensive, it must be consistent in its restrictions and apply them equally to domestic and foreign providers.
And therein lies the rub: the United States allows interstate online betting on horseracing. The United States had also agreed during the Uruguay Round to open its markets to foreign suppliers of gambling and betting services, although the United States Trade Representative (through a spokesman) claimed in 2004 that the previous administration “clearly intended to exclude gambling from U.S. service commitments” when they signed the deal. Both of those inconsistencies lost it the original case.
The United States Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in October 2006, ostensibly to bring its laws into conformity with the April 2005 ruling. But the compliance panel ruled that the United States has taken no satisfactory remedial action that would bring its laws into conformity with its previously-established obligations. Moreover, it appears that the United States applies its laws in a discriminatory manner, by prosecuting foreign gambling entities more than it does U.S. gaming firms. Game, set and match: Antigua and Barbuda.

Frankly, the WTO decision sounds about right to me.

I’m a bit tardy in catching up on Sam Zell’s deal for the Chicago Tribune, which Clear Thinkers favorites the WSJ’s Holman Jenkins ($) and Larry Ribstein have already analyzed with their usual sharp insight. As Jenkins and Professor Ribstein both note, the deal is potentially quite sweet for Zell and, of course, the sale of the Cubs will be a reasonably lucrative sideshow. However, the structure of the deal is that the Tribune employees will be the main owners of newspaper while Zell will control it. So, it’s pretty important to the employee-owners that Zell knows what he is doing in the quickly-changing media business. Based on Zell’s comments in this Washington Post article, my sense is that Tribune employees have much to be worried about:

It’s time for newspapers to stop giving away their stories to popular search engines such as Google, according to Samuel Zell, the real estate magnate whose bid for Tribune Co. was accepted this week.
In conversations before and after a speech Zell delivered Thursday night at Stanford Law School in Palo Alto, Calif., the billionaire said newspapers could not economically sustain the practice of allowing their articles, photos and other content to be used free by other Internet news aggregators.
“If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?” Zell said during the question period after his speech. “Not very.”
Newspapers have allowed Google to use their articles in exchange for a small cut of advertising revenue, but search engines also help to distribute their content to wider online audiences.

My goodness, what on earth is this all about? First, I don’t know much about Google News’ business model, but I’m pretty sure that it does not involve giving newspapers a cut of ad revenue. The reason I know this? Because I use Google News frequently and I haven’t noticed any advertising. Likewise, Google doesn’t steal media content. Rather, it simply indexes the content. Does Zell not understand the difference?
Zell is a smart guy with a track record of success in his ventures. But Zell’s comments indicate that he does not yet appreciate how people find information on the Internet, which is a pretty darn important thing to understand if you are going to run a company that produces a tiny bit of that sea of information. If Zell wants to make money with the Tribune online, then my sense is that he better make friends with Google, not threaten it.

I have avoided the entire Don Imus flap until now, probably because I abhor the type of “entertainment” that Imus provides. Nevertheless, CBS’s decision to fire Imus surprised me, particularly given that Imus’ brusque behavior hasnít prevented from being invited to speak at the National Association of Broadcastersí dinner or from having a line of politicians, media types and other seemingly important people ready and willing to appear on his show. Is anyone really surprised that he insulted the Rutgers women’s basketball team? The hypocrisy of some of Imus’ former supporters who called for his scalp is worse than Imus’ insult.
My sense is that CBS must have had a valid business reason to do this apart from punishing Imus for the insult. Otherwise, the decision would appear to be an overreaction. Given the nature of Imus’ program and his past behavior that CBS willingly indulged, I can’t imagine that CBS had grounds to fire Imus for cause, so CBS is presumably on the hook for the balance of Imus’ contract. And if Imus wants to work and compete with CBS, it’s not as if he is going to have to look hard for a new job. Satellite radio would appear to be ready made for him.
By the way, Jason Whitlock, a bright sports columnist for the Kansas City Star who happens to be a black man, has some interesting thoughts on the Imus affair, as does Radley Balko.