RTE competitions - gambling licence

nomdeplume8_ie

I've always wondered how RTE competitions, for example the late late show, are permitted. Would they not be considered gambling under the 1956 act? Does the fact that they usually have a question you have to answer mean that it's technically "a game of skill", which circumvents the statute book? Is it the fact that they give away under €20,000 a week (this was the amount stated in the document about charities, that I can't find at the moment)?

What is legal defence of such competitions? Reading the 1956 act, I don't see how they could be using a game of skill as a reason either, as it states that the providers of such games should not be able to profit from such a venture, yet surely RTE and companies like Phonovation do profit from such games/competitions. Or is there fudging of what profit means? Are salaries of those running the competition in the company considered expenses, and so the company funnels all revenue to that so the company derives no profit?

Or perhaps they do have a gambling licence that I'm not aware of?

I guess to me, it just seems that there is an incongruence between what statute books imply - that you have no hope of setting up a small for profit raffle or lottery business, with possibly more competitive odds than existing raffles or lotteries, unless it's completely for charity - and what the statute books actually enforce, in that they seem to allow a big company, like Rte, to run competitions that are effectively for profit gambling, which would in effect be flouting (since RTE is not the National Lotto company) what I thought was the purpose of the National Lottery licence - to create a monopoly on for profit lotteries and raffles for the purpose of Canadian pensions...oops I mean... raising money for good causes.

Also, does anybody remember when play TV used to air on TV3 during the height of the economic downturn? And TV3 only caved in to dropping the show after almost a year of incessant complaints of play TVs dubitable practices. Their excuse was they were desperate for revenue, and never really suffered the consequences. Did the 1956 act come into play at all then? Is it just that it's not enforced? Or is it only enforced sometimes for the benefit of some people and not others?

Under His Eye

Play TV originated in Hungary and the deal was they paid TV3 for the airtime and the Hungarians kept the revenue. As they were located outside the state the GLA didn't apply.

Back to RTE. The silly easy question they ask is enough to satisfy the "test of skill" as required by the GLA.

nomdeplume8_ie

From the 1956 act
_______________________________

“gaming” means playing a game (whether of skill or chance or partly of skill and partly of chance) for stakes hazarded by the players;

(3) Gaming shall not be unlawful if no stake is hazarded by the players with the promoter or banker other than a charge for the right to take part in the game, provided that—

(a) only one such charge is made in respect of the day on which the game is played, and

(b) the charge is of the same amount for all the players, and

(c) the promoter derives no personal profit from the promotion of the game.

____________________________________________

So the defence is it's a game of skill? Okay, but do they have a gaming license from revenue then? Or is not considered to be a game?

In relation to the 1956 act , what confuses me is, above, is that the promoter is allowed to charge for the game (in this case, for RTE, the price of phoning in), but they can't derive personal profit? That to me seems contradictory. Surely the profit is contained within the charge?

If RTE don't require a licence for this, a person could then have an online competition with a one euro entrance fee, with an attached multiple-choice question, where the prize money was a fixed percentage of the total entrance fees (the rest be divided for expenses and possible charitable causes), without having to license from the district court or revenue?