I think if an online casino operates longer than 2 years than it's legal, otherwise authorities would find a way to deal with it.
No. How can a casino be "legal" without the proper paper work and licenses even if it operated for more than 2 years?
But with that in mind, they are not "illegal" either. They are in the gray area, and in the same situation with Bitcoin exchanges.
Where it is legal is another question. Like above posters said they may be registered in offshore countries and then, technically you don't have the right to play there if it's not permitted in your country, but of course gamblers can find a way to go round the restrictions.
It is easier to go around the hoops with Bitcoin which makes it the future for online gambling.
I think users should care more about whether a casino
illegal or not, rather than whether it's
legal or not. Like it is stated in the The Ethics Of Capitalism: `If It's Not Illegal, It's Legal'. If something is not prohibited by the law, you can do it. That's why I think when a casino is operating longer than 2 years it means that there is no legal basis to close it in the given territory.
I think it is a little more intricate and complicated than that. What I mean is that
a casino may be illegal in one jurisdiction, as many online casinos are in the US and Canada, and totally legal in some other. So you can't just say if it's not illegal, then it's legal. ~
I think I can. If an online casino is illegal in the US then it's
illegal in the given territory. As simple as that. Yes, you can play there using VPN or whatever, knowing that it's a minor crime and even in the worst case scenario you won't be punished hard, but you can't say it's legal and illegal simultaneously.
If smoking weed is legal in Amsterdam you can't do it in the United Arab Emirates saying " it's legal and illegal simultaneously", you risk to spend several years in jail if you get caught with weed there.
But this is not what you were saying at first. You said that some Ethics Of Capitalism declare that "if it's not illegal, then it's legal". Obviously, this is not that simple and definitely not universal. Now you come to say that it depends on territory. Well, what about gray areas then? Then again, in many jurisdictions anything is far from being legal just because it is not officially illegal.
On the other hand, weed is allowed in many States and forbidden in many others, so what about the whole US? Can we say whether it is legal or not in the US without going specific? Can't we say that weed is both legal and illegal there?