China Slams US Piracy Complaint

bingoathome writes with a link to a BBC article on China's criticism of the US over its complaint to the WTO. The Bush administration is breaking its long-standing policy of backroom conversations with Beijing to condemn the country's continued 'failure to address copyright piracy and counterfeiting.' "The US says that China's failure to enforce copyright laws is costing software, music and book publishers billions of dollars in lost sales ... The US has been threatening a WTO complaint against China since 2005. It said on Tuesday that the two cases had been submitted to the WTO. One case claims that Beijing's poor enforcement of copyright and trademark protections violates WTO rules. The other contends that illegal barriers to hamper sales of US films, music and books. "

Comments

dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Adult film producer]

but how much do legal copies of dvd's sell for? Or rather, how much does the riaa/mpaa want to charge chinese consumers for a DVD ? $20? Maybe it's time for the riaa/mpaa to lower prices and compete with the blackmarket.. there is still money to be made, just don't expect chinese consumers to fork over 15% of their annual income for a lousy hollywood movie.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[pipatron]

When I was there last year they seemed to charge around $5 for a legal copy, in the most expensive stores. You could buy the cheap-ass titles that nobody wants, without a hard cover, for around 50 cents at wal-mart, but I don't know if they were more legal than those sold on the streets for a similar price.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Ours]

I don't know about China but in the countries I've been in Asia, legal DVDs and computer games come real cheap compared to Europe. It's 1/4 of the price from what we pay in Europe. But that's hardly competing with the black market which has even lower prices. Still, I'd buy more DVDs and games if they where priced like the legal stuff in south-east Asia. But with the salaries these people have, they'll never pay more then black-market prices. Besides, why would they give a damn about US/European copyright owners? It's not like we've shown much in the way of caring for the working conditions they have to suffer to sell the stuff they make for us at super cheap prices.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Huwawa]

A government like China's can make people they don't like(e.g., journalists) "disappear" when they really want to. So to me, it doesn't look like they really care about piracy. And why should they? It doesn't really affect their economy...

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[drgonzo59]

I guess the fear might be that such cheap copies of hollywood crap will spill into the US and Western European markets and cut into the profits of RIAA/MPAA and friends. But then again in U.S. and Western Europe we have our broadband and Pirate Bay / BTJunkie / etc. so we can get our share of hollywood crap for $0.

there is still money to be made, just don't expect chinese consumers to fork over 15% of their annual income for a lousy hollywood movie

The problem, according to ??AA is that hollywood movies (all lousy at best, as you mentioned) are not necessities, in other words if the Chinese cannot afford them so be it, they shouldn't watch them. And leave it up to us, the "cultured" and "soffisticated" to pay $20 for garbage like that.

I would actually support hollywood cracking down on those who watch their crap and don't pay. Not because I like hollywood but because I hope people will realize that crap like that is really not worth paying for and/or risking a lawsuit and instead invest their money (that $20) in something better. The same goes for Microsoft, let them go after each pirate and remotely disable all of those "suspicious" windows installs. I think the majority of people who pirate windows already realized that the quality of the product they would be getting if they would buy it "fair and square" is not worth the price, and maybe then they'll switch to a free operating system (say Ubuntu) or pay money for a quality product (OS X).

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[jimstapleton]

Oh they care about it.

It improves their economy, especially when they export the pirated items.

It typically brings a net influx of money, without an outflux. So, they care about it allright...

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[drgonzo59]

They weren't. A lot of the pirated copies in China and Russia look very convincing (no hand written titles on pieces of tissue paper), instead they are high quality reproductions of the originial artwork. The only cost the pirate needs to worry about is the cost of blank media (cents/copy), packaging (could be significant for a quality reproduction, say $1/copy), distribution (pay the person on the street who sells the stuff) + average cost of equipment and upkeep and that's about it. The rest is pure profit. So it is a good business. It is a good business for MPIAA for that matter as well, except they have to recover the cost of actually making the movie...

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the us just labels a person-non-grata an enemy combatant and locks them away.

exactly where is the difference?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Explodicle]

Here is an interesting article about the regulation of prices in monopolies. The RIAA and MPAA realize that they will not make as much profit selling for $20 as they would for $5 in China. However, there is no way whatsoever they can compete with the black market if the law is not enforced.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

I nominate this kind of comment for automatic internet argument loss. Especially when coming from an AC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[morgan_greywolf]

I guess the fear might be that such cheap copies of hollywood crap will spill into the US and Western European markets and cut into the profits of RIAA/MPAA and friends. But then again in U.S. and Western Europe we have our broadband and Pirate Bay / BTJunkie / etc. so we can get our share of hollywood crap for $0.

They already have. I have a friend who goes to China about twice a year. He comes back with nicely produced pirated copies of movies -- these have high-quality reproductions of original cover art, and they come in nice cases and everything. He pays maybe $1-2 (USD) a piece for them, some fetch as much as $5. Compared to U.S. prices, legal DVDs are cheaper, but not that cheap. He gets so many that once or twice a year, he sells a bunch in his neighborhood's semi-annual garage sale for $0.50 a piece.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Illserve]

It's not like we've shown much in the way of caring for the working conditions they have to suffer to sell the stuff they make for us at super cheap prices.

Oh please, that is a grossly unfair criticism. What exactly are we supposed to do? Declare war on China if they don't legislate improved working conditions?

The WTO exists precisely for the purpose of arbitrating disputes of this sort. The US is following protocol for a legitimate concern.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[monsted]

The only cost the pirate needs to worry about is the cost of blank media (cents/copy) [...] Well, they have them pressed in a proper factory using regular CD/DVD fabs. This makes it even cheaper than typical blank media.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[SillyNickName4me]

I nominate this kind of comment for automatic internet argument loss. Especially when coming from an AC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989

The grantparent is off-topic, just like your reply is. Wh?

The fact that the USA locks up people without due process and such does in no way change what the Chinese did and do. Its the "but but.. they are much worse!!" type of argument.

Following the same line of thought, your comment about what the Chinese did is of no relevance for determining the wrongdoing of the USA.

As a matter of fact, both of you make invalid arguments.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[badfish99]

If the Chinese can't afford to pay for Hollywood movies, then "Hollywood cracking down" would cost them money for enforcement, without bringing in any income from sales. So it will never happen.

What Hollywood want, of course, is for governments to enforce copyrights at the taxpayers expense. That doesn't cost them anything, except a little in bribes to make it happen.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[statusbar]

After the fiasco of the U.S.'s Canadian softwood lumber tax where the WTO ruled against the U.S. something like 5 times, I learned that the U.S. only follows WTO rulings when it suits them...

--jeffk++

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[catxk]

In Malaysia, Bangkok and Vietnam (countries I've visited recently), the price of a pirated DVD is basically the same as a double-layer DVDR. The profit comes with mass production and it would no doubt be slightly more expensive to download the DVD9, buy a disc, and burn it, than to buy the pirated DVD of the street. The downside is that sometimes you get a telesync/cam recorded copy, or subtitles are screwed up. However, at least in Malaysia, after a few months of trying different shops, I'm at a 95 per cent success rate for pure DVD copies, with totally no downside to movie quality, the artwork, the box, the everything. I basically get the same piece of value for no more than 2 USD. So, here's the sweet part: Flying to Malaysia from Bangkok, I bought several proper legal retail DVDs at the airport. There wasn't a lot to choose from, but quite recent, quite highprofile movies such as Equilibrium and The Machinist (hey, I'm a fan...) were there and they were as retail as anything I'd get back home in Sweden. Price: 4 USD. That's what I'm prepared paying.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Jack Sombra]

"The WTO exists precisely for the purpose of arbitrating disputes of this sort. The US is following protocol for a legitimate concern."
Except for the small issue of whenever the WTO rules against the US the US ignore them. So pretty hypocritical of the US trying to use the WTO to force others to do their bidding

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[_xeno_]

Oh please, that is a grossly unfair criticism. What exactly are we supposed to do? Declare war on China if they don't legislate improved working conditions?

I dunno, maybe something slightly less severe, like not making them our "preferred trading partner?" Something along the lines of refusing to trade with countries that don't have some minimum standard of working conditions?

And, yes, I know that means we'd have to pay more for consumer goods. It's still a much less costly option than trying to invade China.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Lumpy]

Lower prices??? are you MAD? how do we continue to pay the multi billion dollar salaries that these people RIGHTLY DESERVE for their work?

executives for the MPAA deserve a 7 figure income they work REALLY HARD.
Actors also deserve their 7 and 8 figure incomes, do you realize how incredibly HARD their work is?

Cripes working in a mine or foundry is pampered panzy work compared to what an actor has to deal with daily.

you people make me sick!

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[cHALiTO]

Makes me think of a discussion about game piracy I had a couple of days ago with a guy from a store downtown who imported original games. I said I like games, but they are way too expensive, so I use pirated copies. Of course he wasn't happy, but then he said he once talked to a representative from Sony about producing (pressing) games in the country instead of having to import them (shipping + taxes), and they repliead that they're not interested in the market (in Argentina).
So, i said "well, if they're not interested in the market, I'll just keep copying, they obviously don't care. If they change their minds, and want to make a realistic offer considering the average income here, I'll happily listen".

It's kind of catch-22, because one of the arguments they have for the lack of interest is the amount of piracy in the country, but the piracy itself grew because of high prices in the first place, which are made worse in no small part for import costs.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Illserve]

I dunno, maybe something slightly less severe, like not making them our "preferred trading partner?" Something along the lines of refusing to trade with countries that don't have some minimum standard of working conditions?

And, yes, I know that means we'd have to pay more for consumer goods. It's still a much less costly option than trying to invade China.

It is not our business to run around the world ensuring that all workers are treated according to OUR standards, RIGHT NOW. All countries do things differently and for very different reasons. These people work at these wages because it's better than not working at any wages and children in Nike factories would be pretty pissed if their factory was shut down so that *you* could sleep easier at night.

The US went through its own period of poor working conditions, these things will be worked out.

Also remember that the global economy is a delicate organism. Radical changes, such as curtailing US/Chinese trade would be a Bad Thing (of the Great Depression variety). It'd be bad for you, bad for them, pretty much bad for everybody.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is following protocol for a lobbied concern.

There. Fixed that for ya!!!!!!!!

I find it amusing that they use the term "lost sales". It's as if they think they are guaranteed a certain amount of sales throughout the world, and that all of those HAVE to be legal-like, and proper.

Tough cookies. The world is gray. Not everybody plays by the same rules. Just because a business model works well in our economically leading country, doesn't mean its going to work the same throughout every other nation playing catch up!!!!!

/no sympathy

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Volante3192]

Not to mention just recently the WTO ruled in favor of Antigua over online gaming.

I'd love to see China come out and say, on the record, "The US has no history of agreeing to WTO decisions, why should we?"

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly are we supposed to do?
Uhh, stop being a capitalist whore for 30 seconds and buy American Made?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[MyOtherUIDis3digits]

quite recent, quite highprofile movies such as Equilibrium and The Machinist (hey, I'm a fan...)

Dude, don't apologize - Christian Bale is da man!

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[cHALiTO]

All countries do things differently and for very different reasons

You mean, like not considering IP that much of an issue? I think making -copies- (ie: different from stealing) is a lot less amoral than taking advantage (and somewhat indirectly) help maintaining bad work conditions.
US's money muscle doesn't only reach pockets, it pushes laws abroad, gives uncaring politicians a great incentive to maintain an interest, and for that, keep the work profitable (ie: low paid). Of course it's mostly the local politician's corruption, but taking advantage of it isn't passive or lacking of responsibility.
US mega companies want to profit from 3rd world countries working conditions, they're all for it, but they get all pissed when they have to deal with that same 3rd world country's market conditions (piracy).
You can't have it all.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

No you don't have to declare war, but how about your industrial lobbyists stop blocking Labour protection laws with threats? Or just for once the US to keep their noses out of other peoples business, the most stupid bunch of hypocrits the world has ever seen.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Windows Breaker G4]

And this surprises you because...?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Itchyeyes]

I would like to see any nation that has a perfectly clean trade record. Simple because the US has violated WTO rulings in other areas does not mean that China's flaunting of IP laws is now permissible. As the GP stated, this is a legitimate complaint filed through the appropriate channels. You may not agree with US trade policy, but you certainly can't paint them as in the wrong on this particular issue.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[OldeTimeGeek]

Yeah, because we all know that the only ones who work on movies are the MPAA and the actors - all those names on the credits are only filler so the theme music can play a little longer, right?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[RobertinXinyang]

I Xian I have found that they, generally, cost about $1-1.25 USD (7-9RMB). With this I have seen about a 40-50% failure rate in the DVDs. Keep in mind that th eentire economy is on a different scale. When you look at the economy in terms of work hours, they cost about the same as they do in the US. Imported, ligitimate, DVDs sold at US prices would just be too expensive.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[darthnoodles]

you certainly can't paint them as in the wrong on this particular issue.

Wrong? No.
Hyprocrites? Yes.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[mulvane]

The end return could be worth it. Invading Iraq will eventually pay for itself in oil. China has plenty of resources the US could take over with an invasion. War isn't costly if you think of the cost as an investment.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[TheRistoman]

Oh please, that is a grossly unfair criticism. What exactly are we supposed to do? Declare war on China if they don't legislate improved working conditions? Not that I would condone it, but certainly beats the reasons we're at war with Iraq if you ask me... I'd rather wage war on poverty, a much more tangible (and measurable!) aspect of life than terrorism...

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Illserve]

You mean, like not considering IP that much of an issue? I think making -copies- (ie: different from stealing) is a lot less amoral than taking advantage (and somewhat indirectly) help maintaining bad work conditions.

We are not "helping" to maintain bad work conditions , we (and indeed the entire global market, smug Europeans take note) are benefitting from China's own lack of regulatory oversight. It is ultimately the responsibility of a self sufficient nation, like China, to ensure the welfare of its own citizens (recognizing that there are places, like the Sudan where the government is not capable of this level of control).

So I don't think these issues aren't the mirror images of one another that you suggest. The appropriate analogy to the worker's rights issues would be a scenario in which the pirated DVD's were produced in the US under the blind eye of our government and sold in China, such that the chinese market were purchasing our pirated exports (in which case you might argue they are "helping" us to pirate).

In that case, the US would be in the wrong for asking China to stop buying. The correct course of action would be to clamp down on copying within our borders.

But since we can't cut down on copying withing *their* borders, the WTO is the appropriate channel and arguments that the US deserves this kind of treatment for their own market presence are largely irrelevant to the question of what's right.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Itchyeyes]

And if this were a discussion of Canadian softwood lumber or online gambling in Antigua then that would be a legitimate point. However, in a discussion of enforcement of IP in China, the American hypocrisy in other areas of trade is a red herring. It bears no practical use in determining whether or not China should be allowed to flaunt IP laws.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[mindstormpt]

It's not about having a clean trade record, it's about appealing to a court whose decisions they don't recognize/follow. You can't have it both ways, or at least shouldn't.

Nobody's saying the US lost the right to complain. They can complain all they want, they just lost the right to expect China to comply with the decision.

Sort of like the UN Security Council...

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[dave420]

It's not just the WTO. The US uses these organisations when it suits them, then ignores their verdicts when brought against the US. That's one of the major reasons the world has a less-than-great view of the US - most other nations try their best to adhere to judgements and arbitration that find against them, regardless of how it will affect them. The understanding is you take the good with the bad, otherwise you just piss people off. The US seems to not give a shit, then acts all surprised when other countries get pissed off with them. Selfish foreign policy. It sounds like a rabid leftist mantra, but it's fucking accurate.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[darthnoodles]

This is a discussion of the WTO and the USA's use of it.
It's completely relevant to reference those topics.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

80% of the cost of making a movie is the talent. 80 fricking percent.
The rest is the costs for production, salaries, etc... Most of it is wasted on bullshit names to try and make a polished turd sell.

Get a clue and some idea about movies and the movie industry. I AM inside the industry, been there done that. most of the behind the scenes people are paid very little compared to the incredibly BS paid to these no talent hacks that could be replaced with better talent for far less if some fricking senior producer (read that as the money/managenemt) did not demand "brad pitt must be in this!" because he thinks that brad pitt movies are money makers.

So no, cutting prices by 1/50th will NOT hurt the little guys on the set or editing, only the wastes of human flesh like tom cruise will get "hurt".

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Itchyeyes]

By that logic, Canada and Antigua have no right to file WTO complaints against the US, since both nations doubtlessly have their own violations on their own records, but then whatever nations filed those complaints probably had records of their own too. That kind of logic is circular. The WTO is not some sort of binding natural law. It is merely an institution set up to foster efficient global trade. If you try to make exceptions based on past history, the whole system breaks down. Each case must be determined on its own and not take into account unrelated violations.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

You mean this dispute in which the WTO ultimately ruled in favor of the US?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

. The US uses these organisations when it suits them, then ignores their verdicts when brought against the US Is it too much to ask for examples (beyond the GP's, which was ultimately decided by the WTO in favor of the US).

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the US ignores most world body organizations, as pointed out elsewhere.

It is the same spirit that led the US to be the sole country refusing to sign the Genocide Treaty, even after the USSR signed it -- and finally, when Reagan decided to sign it as a publicity stunt to deflect attention from his visiting that Nazi gravesite and refusal to visit Holocaust sites, the US still didn't join as a full member, so that the US cannot bring any genocide cases, because anyone can legally cite the US' refusal to agree to be subject, if the US brings a case.

So, actually, Bush did not invent the image of the US as the failing colonial imperial power a la France in Algeria -- it predated him -- he merely made it much more obvious with his poor PR skills and unfortunate inability to talk without becoming hilariously (but very unfortunately) inarticulate.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[j-beda]

Is it too much to ask for examples (beyond the GP's, which was ultimately decided by the WTO in favor of the US).

As far as I can see both the Canadian softwood lumber issue and the Antigua gambling issue have been repeatedly decided against the USA - do you know of some more recent WTO or NAFTA decisions supporting the USA's position? I am also unaware of any action on the part of the USA to bring them in compliance with the decision.

I am also unaware of any WTO decisions against Canada or Antigua which have not resulted in changes in their behavior to bring them in line with the WTO decisions.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly are we supposed to do? Declare war on China if they don't legislate improved working conditions?

it's called Bringing democracy not declaring war, we only declare wars against something we can't win.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[miskatonic alumnus]

The WTO exists precisely for the purpose of arbitrating disputes of this sort.

That's complete and total bullshit. The WTO exists precisely for the purpose of exploiting 99% of the world's population for the benefit of the other 1%. What's your salary? I'm guessing if you have faith in the WTO, it isn't chicken feed.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[j-beda]

You mean this dispute in which the WTO ultimately ruled in favor of the US?

I think it was this series of disputes (linked from your law.pitt.edu reference), most of which have been decided in favour of Canada, many of which have been ignored or misapplied by the US. Yes, some of the decisions have gone against Canada, but most of them seem to have gone against the US.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Antique Geekmeister]

Look again: according to my mainland Chines immigrant acquaintances, as much as 90% of the "official" game and movie DVD sales in mainland China are in fact pirated on a corporate scale. With so little threat of prosecution, and no robust identification of whare the discs were purchased from, there's just no way to control this.

This is why Microsoft wants Vista's enhanced DRM capabilities: to cooperate with video producers, and to protect its own software from cheap duplication.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Is it too much to ask for examples (beyond the GP's, which was ultimately decided by the WTO in favor of the US).

As far as I can see both the Canadian softwood lumber issue and the Antigua gambling issue have been repeatedly decided against the USA - do you know of some more recent WTO or NAFTA decisions supporting the USA's position? I am also unaware of any action on the part of the USA to bring them in compliance with the decision.

I am also unaware of any WTO decisions against Canada or Antigua which have not resulted in changes in their behavior to bring them in line with the WTO decisions.

The most recent I could find re: softwood lumber issue: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/04/wto- rules-for-us-in-canada-softwood.php

Re Antigua gambling -- you're correct, and I was unfamiliar with that instance. As of April 2 or so, WTO did rule that US was not in compliance with 2005 ruling, and now requires US to allow Antigua remote gambling sites the same rights as any other remote gambling site. It is a bit early to say whether US is complying with that order; though it should be clear within a couple of months.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[cHALiTO]

We are not "helping" to maintain bad work conditions , we (and indeed the entire global market, smug Europeans take note) are benefitting from China's own lack of regulatory oversight. It is ultimately the responsibility of a self sufficient nation, like China, to ensure the welfare of its own citizens (recognizing that there are places, like the Sudan where the government is not capable of this level of control).

I agree about the entire global market part, but this time it's only the xxAA (US) bitching about piracy.
By benefiting from china's own lack of regulatory oversight they incentivate the people that make that oversight possible to maintain it. To wash your hands and say "it's their problem" is naive and downright irresponsible.
Saying that it's ultimately their responsibility is oversimplifying a complex situation in which many factors play in to maintain certain status quo (where it fits them, of course), and by entering that market you ARE taking actions that have repercutions and responsibilities, like it or not. It's not completely 'the country's responsibility' just as it's not completely the foreign country's responsibility either. It's a sovereign country capable and responsible for their own laws, yes. That doesn't exempt anyone else of any responsibility for what they do in it any more than it exempts some US companies of the ethic responsibilities of what they do in their own country, regardless of their legal right to do it.
I agree that taking it to the WTO is the correct action for complaints like that, what I criticize is the hipocrisy of it, reminiscent of last century's colonial policies, courtesy of our european pals.

recommended reading

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

This is true; however, the end result is that an agreement was reached that the US is complying with. This tends to indicate that the US does indeed respect the WTO arbitration process.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[statusbar]

Canada may have appealed against a WTO ruling, but Canada has always abided by the WTO's final decision.

--jeffk++

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[iminplaya]

...except they have to recover the cost of actually making the movie...

That's what the occasional shakedown is for. The same way the cops deal with drug dealers.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[king-manic]

distribution (pay the person on the street who sells the stuff)

It actually works the other way, a small store buys the stock at a set price, marks it up and resells it. In china the priates are manufactuerers. They do nto controlt he whoel supply chain. they sell to small regional distributors who in turn sell to the outlets. Which are mostly small businesses. Regulation of this type of supply chain is hard. They occasional bust a big wharehouse and claim their fighting the good fight but it's a massive problem that china likely doesn't nto want to get too deep into. No real upside for them and the only drawback is the ire of the US entertainment industry.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that it's fine to ignore decisions untill you get one that suits you? Somewhat backwards, no?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone only uses the rules when it suits them, the case with the USA is that it can throw more weight around thus it can ignore other people, where as weaker and smaller countries need to follow the rules that way they can still have some type of fickle protection, until of course a larger country decides it wants that smaller country.....

im most cases every acts in their own best interests, just because you play by the rules doesnt mean its not in your best interests, if playing by the rules is more helpful then the price of disobeying the rules then people will follow them....

its just game theory

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[jac89]

What may I ask is the incentive for him to buy DVDs at $1-2 and sell them for $0.50? The goodness of his heart? If that is the case isn't invalidated by him having bought pirated DVDs in the first place.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[j-beda]

As I read it, the agreement does not in fact comply with the various decisions that have gone against the US, it is in fact more favorable to the US than implementing the changes that those decisions mandated. If the US just implemented the mandated changes to their behavior, no "agreement" would be necessary. The agreement is needed because the US does not want to do what they are supposed to do under the various trade agreements already in place so they need Canada to agree to a new arrangement outside of the process - Canada of course wants (some of) its 5 billion bucks back and to get their injured forestry sector back to good health so it has some incentive to sign onto a deal that is not as good as the one that they though they already had withing the WTO and NAFTA arrangements.

If the US respected the WTO arbitration process it would just comply with the decisions of that process rather than need to negotiate separate arrangements.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Locklin]

Makes sense to me:

Billions of dollars *lost* to the U.S. in in-tangible products == Billions of dollars *gained* by the Chinese economy.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[tkw954]

This is true; however, the end result is that an agreement was reached that the US is complying with. This tends to indicate that the US does indeed respect the WTO arbitration process.

Yeah, the Canadians finally agreed to an settlement that was vastly one-sided after the US made it plain that they would not be complying with any ruling against them. That's like saying that muggers respect the law because you *agree* to give them your wallet.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[asuffield]

What exactly are we supposed to do?

Stop being the employers who provide the awful working conditions. The worst offenders aren't the locals trying to make something on the cheap, it's the international megacorps who have an entire staff dedicated to grinding out every last penny of "unnecessary" cost.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[JordanL]

most other nations try their best to adhere to judgements and arbitration that find against them, regardless of how it will affect them.

You mean like France with Oil-For-Food?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[shaitand]

'Oh please, that is a grossly unfair criticism. What exactly are we supposed to do? Declare war on China if they don't legislate improved working conditions?'

Don't be ridiculous. We are supposed to outlaw the use of Chinese labor and goods. This time we do it for real and bar goods from Taiwan as well.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[shaitand]

'It bears no practical use in determining whether or not China should be allowed to flaunt IP laws.'

That is a strawman, the points about Canadian lumber and Antigua gambling are completely relevant in determining whether the WTO should give consideration to US complaints.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[operagost]

So two wrongs make a right?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Maitri]

Thank goodness someone said it! It drives me nuts when people in the music or movie industry assume that a pirated movie or song equals a movie or song that someone didn't buy. This simply isn't the case. I imagine that a lot, perhaps even most, of the time that the people pirating stuff wouldn't own it if they couldn't pirate it. In other words zero (people who would have bought it) minus zero (sold because of pirating) equals zero net sales. I believe that there are no, or very few, lost sales. Now this is obviously overstating the case, as there is probably some small factor in each of those categories that isn't actually a zero... but until the industry does a study that can prove what this percentage is in some scientific way I refuse to worry about it and I am going to be grumpy about my tax money wasting time trying to enforce it. Use it on education or fixing the crappy roads around here instead - guarantee it will benefit more people in the long run that way.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[digitig]

I would be very surprised if you managed to find a legal copy of a DVD in China, outside of Hong Kong and Macau. I don't know what the price would actually be in China, but I do know of the situation in Russia, because a couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a member of the Russian trade delegation at an IPR conference. In Russia, a legal DVD of a current Hollywood DVD release costs about one month's average wage. It's no wonder Piracy is rife.

That same person made the point that the world's biggest exporter of pirated DVDs, software, etc, (based on customes seizures) is the USA, but the US government doesn't seem to see that as such a big issue.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Volante3192]

Make? Unlikely.

Lead to? We can only hope.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[hondo77]

I'd love to see China come out and say, on the record, "The US has no history of agreeing to WTO decisions, why should we?"

Exactly. China loves to respond to U.S. criticism by pointing out U.S. hypocrisy on the subject.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[onkelonkel]

F. L. O. U. T. - the word is flout, not flaunt.

I know the two words look similar but they do not have the same meaning.

Obergrammarfuehrer von Umlaut at your service!

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

we also learned that the Canadians are weak spined coward; fucking lumberjacks and hockey is all that comes out of there.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[jamar0303]

because he doesn't want to attract too much attention (unlike China, those DVDs are illegal to have in the US)?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Yikes - I concede to superior familiarity with & knowledge of the situation :) Clearly I have a bit of reading to do when I get home.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[jamar0303]

Where in China are you? I get them for 5-7RMB apiece in Shanghai (in one of the more "out there" areas). Failure rate is high but at least they let me return them (same can't be said for official DVDs, though).

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

you are so wrong - an actor's work isn't harder!

it is similar.

but those mining and foundry workers don't have all those women to fight off, so their job obviously should pay less.

what is wrong with today's society that they don't understand this?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[jamar0303]

Exactly- When games cost $50 (DS and PSP games first cost that much in China around their release dates) everyone turned to piracy. Of course now that prices are more reasonable (less than half the original price) people are buying.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[morgan_greywolf]

He's not selling them to make money, he's selling ones he doesn't want anymore to make room for more. And, like another poster said, I'm sure he doesn't want to attract attention.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[slffea]

I posted this before in a related debate, and since it applies here, I'm will use it in response to Illserve.


**
It is not our business to run around the world ensuring that all workers are treated according to OUR standards, RIGHT NOW. All countries do things differently and for very different reasons. These people work at these wages because it's better than not working at any wages and children in Nike factories would be pretty pissed if their factory was shut down so that *you* could sleep easier at night.

I would like to respond to those of you that agree with this opinion.

The above quote, which I believe is not true based on personal discussions with Vietnamese immigrants, takes a very myopic view of the situation.

The reason most of these companies are able to set up sweatshops is that they not only exploit the labor situation, but the poverty of the government as well. Sadly, especially in Vietnam, most of the politicians there are more than ready to take a bribe and sell out the populous to Nike or any company bringing American Dollars. This type of corruption is really what prevents change. When it becomes profitable for dictatorships like Vietnam to sell their people out, they will do so and any company that buys into this situation is complicit in perpetuating it.

There was a time in the United States before child labor laws when American children were the ones working in sweat shops. Factories owners were probably using the same arguments then as some of you are using now. "We're giving these children wages. Some of them are supporting their whole family. How dare you liberals try to take that away." In some sense these arguments are true. But in the big picture, what America had was a situation where it became advantageous to a family to send its children into sweatshops and for the government to allow it to continue, and any scenario of short term profitability will perpetuate itself unless it is banned outright.

Let me illustrate with the following extreme example:

Mr. Nguyen wants to sell Mr. Rockefeller his son Troung's kidney for $10,000. This $10,000 will be a great help to his family in Vietnam, much more than the extra kidney will be to the child.

Why don't we allow such an exchange to take place? All of the above is true, and their are probably thousands of third world citizens who would take advantage of such an offer. I have no doubt there are some here who think this type of thing should be allowed. I am, however, absolutely against it for the following reasons:

1. Children do what their parents ask them do to. When the parents are poor and desperate, they are willing to put their children though great hardships for the sake of themselves and the family(A prominent example of this is young girls and boys sold into prostitution in Thailand). Maybe you cannot prevent it, but it IS IN YOUR POWER not to personally promote it by buying from a company that exploits these types of situations when you are aware of it.
2. Slippery slope. Usually I try to reject slippery slope arguments, but the possibility of exploitation by middlemen in recruiting/threatening organ donors, bidding down the price of an organ, etc. is very real( For example, the underground market for babies). In regards to sweatshops, these middlemen are in the form of the politicians who not only provide the permits, they probably also will act on behalf of the company to keep wages depressed and squash worker's demands for better conditions.

It is unfortunate that the simple act of buying something as innocuous as tennis shoes has to be viewed in the context of a moral or immoral act. I certainly know that I haven't lived a perfect life. But if you are going to buy from Nike, understand the implications of what you are doing, and don't try to rationalize it to the point that you think you're doing some Vietnamese sweatshop worker a favor. You're not.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Oblio]

> Radical changes, such as curtailing US/Chinese trade would be a Bad Thing (of the Great Depression variety).

The 2006 estimates of (X-I) represent 6.4% of our GDP (official exchange rate adjusted)*. Of which china is a fraction.

The sky is not falling (nor will it because of something like this).

I'm not suggesting that the GP's idea should be pursued, but it's a reasonable discussion point. Bringing up the Great Depression is, on the other hand, highly unreasonable. Those conditions really can't reoccur with an active Fed (reserve bank).

* figures whipped out of my calculator using the data from the cia online factbook.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[mosb1000]

"a legal DVD of a current Hollywood DVD release costs about one month's average wage"

If you don't want to pay for it, don't watch it.

"based on customes(SIC) seizures"

Of course, not all countries take equal measures to counteract piracy, so that doesn't really mean anything.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[digitig]

"a legal DVD of a current Hollywood DVD release costs about one month's average wage"

If you don't want to pay for it, don't watch it.
Well, that's the legal position, certainly.

"based on customes(SIC) seizures"

Of course, not all countries take equal measures to counteract piracy, so that doesn't really mean anything. In my understanding, customs seizures usually take place on import, not export. So what you're saying is that other countries are exporting just as much pirated stuff as the USA, but US customs are more lax than other countries on the import of that stuff?

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[king-manic]

Actually, a lot of countries abide by the WTO ruling because they are punished for not doing so. Canada has a particularly clean record the US has a particularly bad one.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Skuld-Chan]

So two wrongs make a right?

Basically your saying that a wrong is a left right? So if you turned left at least 3 times at 90 deg intervals you would have a right. The US has at least done that many wrongs.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[king-manic]

This is true; however, the end result is that an agreement was reached that the US is complying with. This tends to indicate that the US does indeed respect the WTO arbitration process.

No a compromise was reached that ignored the WTO rulings and Canada agreed because they didn't want to draw it out any longer and forsaw little change to reclaim any more of the tarrifs.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[shaitand]

'The goodness of his heart? If that is the case isn't invalidated by him having bought pirated DVDs in the first place.'

Buying pirated DVD's is illegal not immoral.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Columcille]

If I steal from someone, I've shown a clear disregard for the law. If I'm caught, I'll be punished. If someone steals from me, they've shown a clear disregard for the law and will also be punished. The justice department will uphold the law on my behalf even if I've already shown my own disregard for the law as applies to me. I don't know much about prior US dealings with the WTO, but I do believe laws should be upheld even on behalf of imperfect citizens. Whether or not the US is a perfect citizen of the WTO really is not relevant. Whether or not China has broken trade agreements is relevant.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[shaitand]

'The justice department will uphold the law on my behalf even if I've already shown my own disregard for the law as applies to me.'

That's not entirely true. The law does not apply the same way to a convicted and incarcerated prisoner.

'I don't know much about prior US dealings with the WTO, but I do believe laws should be upheld even on behalf of imperfect citizens.'

We aren't talking about someone breaking a code of laws. We are talking about an international organization that exists to resolve disputes between its members. When a member thinks another is acting unfairly they can raise a dispute and all parties have agreed to abide by the decisions of the organization. A member gets the right to raise complaints in exchange for their agreement to abide by decisions. If a member raises complaints but never abides by unfavorable decisions then they really have no right to be a member or to raise issues.

Take the other stance. You are Italy and the US raises an issue against you. Regardless of the merit of the issue you will lose. If the ruling is in your favor, the US will ignore it and possibly take justice in its own hands via sanctions or military action. If you ever have need to raise an issue against the US, the US will ignore any ruling against it. Why should the US be able to enjoy the benefits of favorable decisions if it ignores the consequences of unfavorable ones? Why should any of the other member nations recognize disputes from the US under those circumstances?

I wouldn't.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[LadyLucky]

Well, I found heaps in Beijing for about $5. These were real DVDs. You can tell the difference because they are in the massive bookshops, they have decent subtitles and use dual-layer DVDs.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Columcille]

Thanks for the post, I misunderstood a few things about the WTO. Time to go do some reading. :)

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[hostyle]

The Wongs? Do you have some insider info the rest of us don't know about ...

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

I do know of the situation in Russia, because a couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a member of the Russian trade delegation at an IPR conference. In Russia, a legal DVD of a current Hollywood DVD release costs about one month's average wage. It's no wonder Piracy is rife. I do know of the situation in Russia, because I live here. A legal DVD doesn't cost about one month's average wage.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[KDR_11k]

Of course China shouldn't be allowed to but would you listen if you were told by an organization to stop something when the one who complained about you never heeded the organization's orders, either? China wants to build an economy that competes with the US and they've seen that one successful strategy of the US is to ignore the WTO when it pleases them. China will imitate that because they want to play by the same rules as their competition and in this case the rule is "international bodies are a way to get your power enforced, not curtailed".

If the US wants this complaint to have weight behind it they need to threaten trade sanctions if China does not follow up.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[edwardpickman]

The Russian you met was lying to you. It's a good dodge to say americans are behind it but the simple fact is most DVDs, pirate and legit, are made in south east asia. It's cheaper to make there period. The music industry used to be big into pirating as a way to screw the artists out of their royalty but this may have bit them in the ass since piracy now dwarfs legit music and they aren't the ones pirating now. The real truth is profits are dropping and the quality and quantity of what's out there to pirate is going start dropping. The pirates may one day have to offer to pay something for the films and music simply because they won't have enough left to pirate to stay in business.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[KDR_11k]

For other organizations the whole UN-Iraq debacle comes to mind.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[AK Marc]

I found heaps in Shanghai for $1. They were dual layer and in massive bookshops. They were illegal. But I got the best deals in Shenzhen. There was a street stand that sold the single layers for $0.50. Just stay away from the movies that aren't on DVD in the US yet. Some of the best cam versions I have ever seen, but cam versions none the less. And I don't know how they did it, but cam versions I've seen in the US all have crappy sound. The ones in China had great sound. They must have found a way to rip the audio directly (since almost all movies come with the sound on separate media and synced to the movie with timestamps in the print, rather than relying on the analog sound build into the print as they used to do). I came home with about 50 DVDs, only one of which did not play (Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo Drift) and paid about the cost of two US DVDs for the lot.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[RealGrouchy]

So two wrongs make a right?

Look at it this way:

The U.S. continually violates WTO rules. If other countries are also violating WTO rules (even if they are totally stupid), the U.S. will say that they're waiting for the other country to comply.

When the other countries do comply, the U.S. *continues* to not comply. That's two wrongs right there: (1) U.S. benefitting from other countries' compliance, and (2) U.S. benefiting from U.S. noncompliance.

The "let's make sure we're obeying the rules before we hold the U.S. to account" tactic obviously doesn't work, so China is trying a different one. I hope it works.

- RG>

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Guuge]

Ignoring the WTO is not wrong.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Illserve]

Good points. I'm certainly inclined to feel sympathy towards nations like Vietnam.

But not so much for China, I consider that nation to be the master of its own destiny at this point.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[RobertinXinyang]

I am in Xinyang, dirrectly West from Shanghai and South of Beijing; I am at the intersect point. In this town they cost about 7RMB (which is a lot closer to $1USD than it is to .25); however, I have had a 100% failure rate. So, I go to Xian or Zhenzhou for DVDs instead (and I am able to visit my daughter, who works near Xian when I go there).

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[muuh-gnu]

Those people could easily be paid by allocating great parts of the superstars wages or the producer's profits to them. There is really no need to give somebody dozens of millions of dollars just to grin in front of a camera for a few weeks.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[mindstormpt]

I said:

Nobody's saying the US lost the right to complain.

You replied:

By that logic, Canada and Antigua have no right to file WTO complaints against the US, since both nations doubtlessly have their own violations on their own records, but then whatever nations filed those complaints probably had records of their own too.

Did you at least read my comment? They have every right to complain, they just can't expect anyone else to abide by the court's decision if they themselves don't.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[mindstormpt]

Where it says "court" read WTO, but the spirit is the same.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[vic-traill]

You mean this dispute in which the WTO ultimately ruled in favor of the US?

No, I mean *this* dispute in which the U.S. was required to return about 80 per cent of the more than $5 billion in duties it had collected on lumber imports.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Canada_softwood_ lumber_dispute

In April 2006, The United States and Canada announced that they had reached a tentative settlement to end the current dispute. Under the preliminary terms, the United States would lift duties provided lumber prices continue to stay above a certain range. Below the specified range, a mixed export tax/quota regime would be implemented on imports of Canadian lumber. As a part of the deal, more than $5 billion in duty deposits collected would be returned. It's called bargaining and every country does it.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[dryeo]

On the other hand (at least here in the west) there are a number of people who pirate, like what they pirate and then buy. So sometimes pirating leads to more sales.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[superpulpsicle]

I think Hollywood has lost it completely. I find myself watching foreign stuff more and more. I have no problem paying $20 for a movie if only I knew it wasn't going to annoying socialite-types.

These are the same people who spend $6 million on weddings, $500,000 in nail saloons, own 20 porsches and still get caught by the media stealing bubblegum in public.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[kaatochacha]

Do you honestly belive that the US is the big bad wolf who goes around eating children, while every other country tries its best, gosh darn it, to be true and good? If you don't think ALL countries do their best to get their way, regardless of law, you're fooling yourself. The "try their best to adhere to judgements" part actually made me laugh, in my own cynical way.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[dave420]

The US's hundreds of vetoes at the UN security council, while screaming at other countries to abide by the international community's wishes. That's enough, surely. I'm not being a rabid-anti-American (I'm married to one) - this is a massive problem that affects many "large players" on the world scene. This culture needs to be stopped, as the injustice it causes (or even perceived injustice) can flare up in very bloody fashion. Countries need to make no difference between themselves and other countries, or indeed the citizens of either country. Selfish behaviour, while easy to sell, is not good for anyone in the long-run. Shit, the British Empire was a great example of this sense of entitlement some nations seem to feel. It was great for Britain, but shitty (real shitty) for the places it touched. The logic that "it's ok for us to do what we want" was the same logic that the Brits had when they set sail for the first time, until the empire fell. It's also the same reasoning the Germans used (fuck Godwin). It's clearly not good.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[dave420]

This isn't the playground. Pointing out someone who smells worse than you doesn't stop you from smelling. Grow up.

Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai

[dave420]

No, of course I don't think the US is the only selfish player out there. I do think, however, that is no excuse for the hypocrisy of the US. You, on the other hand, seem to think as long as you're not the only one doing wrong, you can continue without guilt. Excellent reasoning. Selfish behaviour breeds selfish behaviour, and this has serious effects on people on the brink of existence, and you end up getting problems like we're seeing today. Yay for your logic! Yippee!

China might as well ignore WTO rulings

[Anonymous Coward]

just like the US does, if they don't like them:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/02/10 35210

Re:China might as well ignore WTO rulings

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong! I live in the US and I hope the WTO slaps us for the hypocritical gambling stance and I would rather see ALL gambling come offline. That way people have to put out some effort before ruining their lives. That doesn't mean we should give carte blanch to China for doing something that could potentially harm a lot more. China should be slapped as well.

Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the US is wasting all its tax money for some dumb purpose doesn't mean China has to be dragged down with it. There are much better uses for this money (e.g. feeding their own starving farmers) than enforcing the feeding of rich Americans.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

(e.g. feeding their own starving farmers) than enforcing the feeding of rich Americans.

I'd imagine there's similar (per capita) quantities of starving people in the US & China.

You dumbass.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you're wrong because poverty is much greater in china. Do your research before you call people dumbasses.

Re:Priorities

[Gryle]

Well you're wrong because poverty is much greater in china.

[sarcasm]That's one mighty convincing arguement you have there.[/sarcasm] Seriously, where are your supporting facts or sources to back-up your claims? The burden of proof rests on you.

Re:Priorities

[Grashnak]

Well you're wrong because poverty is much greater in china.

[sarcasm]That's one mighty convincing arguement you have there.[/sarcasm] Seriously, where are your supporting facts or sources to back-up your claims? The burden of proof rests on you. Just to be clear, are you actually doubting that poverty in much worse in China than in the US? Seriously?

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than slamming other people for not doing your research for you, shouldn't you consider what they're saying? Comparing poverty populations in the two countries doesn't even matter. The topic is priorities, and all in all, China's better off spending its tax money feeding the hungry than paying rich Americans that can way more than afford a living.

And since you're so keen on making others find proof for you. http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevent s/t20050513_402249491.htm
Note that their poverty line is 668 yuan per capita. That's $90 per year.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Dogs are fuzzy.

Re:Priorities

[Gryle]

Based on conversations I've had with Chinese immigrants, the poverty in China is much worse/widespread than poverty in the US. I was just pointing out the idiocy of the AC GP's method of argument.

Interesting how they chose their battles.

[aadvancedGIR]

China and other countries produce and export lots of low quality counterfeit products, including drugs and mecanical parts that can endanger consumers health but the US Gov. is only mad about copies of overpriced products (usually made in China for dirt cheap BTW) to protect the profit of a few cartels.

Re:Interesting how they chose their battles.

[delt0r]

..export lots of low quality counterfeit products, Counterfeit yes. Low quality no. Many products come of the *same* production line with a slightly different logo (no serious retooling). Many "bootleg" CD's are printed from the same masters. The stuff is good. And cheaper. Also some of it is literaly stolen from the factory floor.

Re:Interesting how they chose their battles.

[aadvancedGIR]

Although what you are talking about about is a real phenomena (and a good reason not to outsource because you can't compete on either cost or quality in that case), there are also lots of workshops that produce totally fake products, usualy using materials that can barely look like the real product but are really cheap.

If your 0.49$ screwdriver bends, it is not a disaster, if those brakes you got for a tenth of normal price with no invoice do not work after 50 miles, it can be.

Re:Interesting how they chose their battles.

[Illserve]

but the US Gov. is only mad about copies of overpriced products (usually made in China for dirt cheap BTW) to protect the profit of a few cartels

It's likely they're upset about all of them, but this particular form of piracy has the most egregious profit ratio. There is practically zero cost in creating these counterfeits while the US industry is effectively footing the entire bill for making the product.

Re:Interesting how they chose their battles.

[Opportunist]

The US population is footing that bill. The industry is producing with slave labour in far east anyway, the difference is only that the revenue is staying in the far east instead of the purses of the corporations.

Re:Interesting how they chose their battles.

[tomhudson]

Just follow the $$$.

Ignore the counterfeits for a moment. Every year for the last 22 years, the trade deficit with china has gone up. January alone was $25.6 BILLION http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700. html#2006, up from $21.4 billion the previous January. With those numbers, WalUSMart is looking at a $300 billion trade deficit this year, just with China.

This could be a way for BushCheneyHalliburton to lay the groundwork for further import duties. Even a 10% across-the-board surtax would generate $30 billion (and you're probably looking at a rate more like 33% to 50%). Thats so much money its hard for them to ignore. Of course, it means that all those cheap imports get more expensive, but that only hurts the poor (in both countries), and there's no evidence Bush even knows the poor exist, except as cannon fodder.

Re:Interesting how they chose their battles.

[clickety6]

Whereas the US markets its low-quality, life-endangering cars to its own citizens ;-)

Re:Interesting how they chose their battles.

[oliphaunt]

I didn't see this in the parent post: what products are at issue here? Everyone seems to assume this is about counterfeit DVDs. Does it make a difference if it is consumer goods or textiles manufactured in china, like counterfeit Nike sneakers and T-shirts, or Oakley sunglasses, or Calvin Klein tuxedos? I mean, you can only spend so much time watching movies. Most of us wear shoes all day long.

Re:Interesting how they chose their battles.

[Lumpy]

and lots of high quality counterfeits as well.

I get really great superbright led's for 1/10th the price of american "certified" ones. hell I thrive on the counterfit $9.00US optivision security video capture boards instead of buying and using the $199.00 ones. I can afford to keep 10-20 in stock for free replaceemnt to my customers. I never have them fail for bad craftsmenship but do have them fail in lightning storms. I end up keeping a customer for life doing free lightning damage replacement on the boards while my competition that uses the real optivision boards cant afford to. (boo hoo for them)

Lots and lots of grey market producst of decent quality, as long as thay are 1/10th the cost or lower lots of us will happily buy them and accept the risks.

Re:Interesting how they chose their battles.

[king-manic]

This could be a way for BushCheneyHalliburton to lay the groundwork for further import duties. Even a 10% across-the-board surtax would generate $30 billion (and you're probably looking at a rate more like 33% to 50%). Thats so much money its hard for them to ignore. Of course, it means that all those cheap imports get more expensive, but that only hurts the poor (in both countries), and there's no evidence Bush even knows the poor exist, except as cannon fodder.

Given that such a tarrif would send both nations into a recession. It's be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Also, bush chenney are gone really soon. The next admin may be affiliated but I wouldn't count on it with such popular backlash against this regime. Worst thing to happen to the US since Hoover and MCarthy.

Re:Interesting how they chose their battles.

[TheoMurpse]

Of course, it means that all those cheap imports get more expensive, but that only hurts the poor (in both countries)

If we place a tax on imports from China, then the poor cannot buy their goods as cheaply.

If we do not curtail the ridiculous trade deficit in this country, the dollar devalues, and the entire US goes into a depression where we cannot buy anything from another country. Then no one can buy anything (think: no gasoline for cars, thus no gasoline to ship food around the country, thus lots of starving people).

Of course, the best solution is that non-poor people start buying US-made products, even if they are more expensive. As soon as I'm not a poor student (give me 2 years, guys), I'm going to try to buy as many US-made products as possible. I suppose the only obvious exception I'll make is "car," since I view my loyalty to the existence of the human race (by not killing the environment) as higher than loyalty to my country. And US cars are horribly inefficient.

Odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely all the DVD shops I know of in Shanghai are closed today. There's still street vendors here and there however.

I imagine they'll be open again soon, but it shows that China cares to some extent.

Re:Odd...

[ebonum]

Where are you shopping? I count 4 shops in Shanghai between zhongshan gongyuan and ganghui xujiahui. :) You are right. Most of them have dropped off. Now you have to look down the small side streets. The average salary in a lot of parts of china is 2 - 3,000 USD. In Shanghai, it is closer to 5,000USD. There is a good reason these people don't buy 120RMB DVD's. Average workers here (people in stores, my ayi or maid, construction worker) make 8 or 10 RMB per hour. At 10RMB for a DVD, it is a little luxury. If there were no counterfeit DVDs, there would be essentially zero sales. Zip. US studios are not losing a billion dollars a year here in sales due to counterfeiting. Back track 10 years, before file sharing, and think about how many DVD's the studios would sell in the US at over $100 a copy. Due to the prevalence of American entertainment that is so readily available here, there is a large base of consumers in China that are accustomed to and desire American entertainment. They have very little money to spend, but that will change. Give it 10-15 years. The bottom line is that the studios have reaped a HUGE benefit from the piracy. They now have a large number of _potential_ consumers. Ten years ago, they didn't know about american DVD's and they didn't care. If there was never any piracy here, the Chinese would still be watching all Taiwanese or dubbed Honk Kong movies and TV, and would have to be converted through huge, and expensive, advertising campaigns. Another thing. The real CD's and DVD's here that I have seen are 100 -> 160RMB. They are about the same price as in the US. Concerning DVD's shipped from China to the US, I really don't know about that. In NYC, I remember that 4 years ago all the street vendors were selling locally made copies from the Bronx or somewhere else nearby.

Re:Odd...

[Fitch]

China only cares insomuch as it might endanger trade relations with it's largest trading partner.

I must apologize for my liberal use of the word 'partner' since it implies reciprocity. The US has a several hundred billion dollar per year trade deficit with communist China. These gross violations of intellectual property rights are but a drop in the bucket that is the US' trade policy with them. Unfortunately the US govt. and it's consumer public are too enamored with the 'bargain' of cheap Chinese goods to wake up and see the slaughterhouse at the end of the narrow ramp that they're treading.

This says nothing about China's blatant manipulation of it's currency, it's theft of military secrets, etc. While we're busy arguing for the civil rights of it's citizens or complaining about it's theft of IP, it's quite boisterously positioning itself to kick our collective asses.

Re:Odd...

[lightversusdark]

I wouldn't buy a DVD at 120RMB.
I'd consider a 160 RenMegaByte CD, but that kind of bitrate is way too low for video.

Re:Odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all around Xujiahui and Hengshan Lu. The big one near Gome on Cao Bei Lu is hidden behind a couple of sheets and I couldn't even find the big one near Xinhua on Hengshan Lu anymore.

Hmph

[tbone1]

The US' argument might have carried more weight if it hadn't been authored by Joe Biden.

Seriously, though, is this a surprise to anyone? If China will run over defenseless people with an armored personnel carrier, who would expect them to honor the property rights of people who are not from The Celestial Kingdom?

And if the US' only economic advantage over China is in entertainment, is it surprising that they'd go after this?

Re:Hmph

[aadvancedGIR]

Entertainment could be an economic advantage, but I don't really see the advantage of declaring economic warfare with the country where most of the blockbuster DVD are made. What if they forget to ship some of them on time, introduce "errors" or sell copies to the pirate scene weeks before the release date (oops, my mistake, they are already doing that last part).

Re:Hmph

[Huwawa]

Agreed. Big shot in the foot for the administration to start picking fights with China. The fact that they manufacture everything that the U.S. and others use is the only reason we don't have an embargo with China like we do with Cuba. Money talks.

Re:Hmph

[Anonymous Coward]

If it comes to a head china could cripple the US.... The US far more dependent on cheap foreign labour to maintain lifestyle levels.

My guess is this 'idea' came from a typical short sighted government moron messing with the traditional process / relationship with china.

What about piracy in the US?

[WaZiX]

They are already having one hell of a hard time fighting piracy in such a policed country as the US, how exactly do they expect China with its 1.3 billion citizens to tackle this problem?

Also, seeing the poverty and corruption problems in China, I sure hope that they use their money to make life better for their own citizen, then maybe they can start pumping money into an impossible to achieve goal...

Re:What about piracy in the US?

[Viceroy Potatohead]

They are already having one hell of a hard time fighting piracy in such a policed country as the US, how exactly do they expect China with its 1.3 billion citizens to tackle this problem?

That's a damned good point.

It made me think (somewhat tongue in cheek):
China ought to file a complaint with the WTO, stating that the US is not respecting intellectual property laws, and it is costing them billions of dollars (pull a number from a hat, everyone else does) in their plastics manufacturing industries, DVD pressing industry, book manufacturing industries. etc... After all, if the US would only change their laws to allow for easier police monitoring (like the Chinese have), the US could stop a lot more internal piracy.

The US position seems to have little to do with the fairness intended by trade organizations, and more to do with hypocrisy and protectionism.

So when will the US pay *us* back?

[Rycochet]

Considering how long America refused to recognise the copyright of other countries, in fact it's not even 20 years since they started, does that mean we all get a big apology and a huge payout for the lost billions (after inflation) that their bigotry has cost??

I thought not...

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[Gryle]

Considering how long America refused to recognise the copyright of other countries, in fact it's not even 20 years since they started, does that mean we all get a big apology and a huge payout for the lost billions (after inflation) that their bigotry has cost??

For the clueless amongst us (myself included) can you explain what you're talking about?

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[Kjella]

From the wikipedia page on the Berne convention:
"The United States refused initially to become a party to the Convention, since it would have required major changes in its copyright law (particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement for registration of copyright works as well as elimination of mandatory copyright notice). However, on March 1, 1989, the US "Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force and the United States became a party to the Berne Convention."

In short, before 1989 you'd better register it and include a "(c) All rights reserved".

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[SillyNickName4me]

I believe this is a consequence of things like the Berne convention and automatic copyright.

Copyright has been 'automatic' for a long time in for example Europe, but not so in the USA, hence, for a long time to get your copyright recognized in the USA, you had to register it in the USA, else no copyright protection for you.

The other way around, US produced material has had copyright protection in Europe for a long time.

As a result, there was no problem for those in the USA 'pirating' productions from outside the USA since the automatic copyrights were simply not recognized, while things produed in the USA would be protected in for example Europe.

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[EzInKy]

"The United States refused initially to become a party to the Convention, since it would have required major changes in its copyright law (particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement for registration of copyright works as well as elimination of mandatory copyright notice). However, on March 1, 1989, the US "Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force and the United States became a party to the Berne Convention."


As everyone can now see, signing the Berne Convention has brought nothing but trouble to the US. Before that the default was for works to be in the public domain and creators had to register for protection. And what really gets me is we did it at a time when creating an electronically searchable database of copyrighted works was becoming a real possibility. I have a great respect for the modern liberal ideals of Europe and would like to see the US incorporate many of them, but Berne is simply unforgivable.

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[SillyNickName4me]

As everyone can now see, signing the Berne Convention has brought nothing but trouble to the US. Before that the default was for works to be in the public domain and creators had to register for protection. And what really gets me is we did it at a time when creating an electronically searchable database of copyrighted works was becoming a real possibility. I have a great respect for the modern liberal ideals of Europe and would like to see the US incorporate many of them, but Berne is simply unforgivable.

The problem of the Berne convention is not automatic copyright. Automatic copyright protects small and individual producers and allows them to concentrate on creating content instead of being bogged down with formalities. It protects creators from their content being stolen (as in, a draft copy of a book being stolen for example) and published before they could register it and so on.

The real problem is that copyright lasts virtually forever, preventing works from entering the public domain.

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[EzInKy]

The problem of the Berne convention is not automatic copyright. Automatic copyright protects small and individual producers and allows them to concentrate on creating content instead of being bogged down with formalities.


Nope, I have to strenuously disagree. Copyright being automatic fosters the belief that it is some sort of natural right while the formalities of registration makes it clear that the protection is a contract with society.


The real problem is that copyright lasts virtually forever, preventing works from entering the public domain.


Term lengths are definitely a problem, but not nearly as large as the problem as authors believing that their works are not part of the public domain the moment they are created.

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[SillyNickName4me]

Nope, I have to strenuously disagree. Copyright being automatic fosters the belief that it is some sort of natural right while the formalities of registration makes it clear that the protection is a contract with society.

I do not have to disclose what is in my head (at least in most cases). If I however publish whats in my head for the benefit of society, the contract is that for a certain time, I get some exclusive rights regarding what I published. That is the exact same social contract and no registration is required at all.

Registration serves an entirely different purpose, it makes sure that after expiration of copyright, a copy is available at the library of congress.

Term lengths are definitely a problem, but not nearly as large as the problem as authors believing that their works are not part of the public domain the moment they are created.

And those authors are quite correct in believing that. As long as I create something and never ever show or give it to anyone else, it is also not part of the public domain, at least not in any meaningfull way.

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[EzInKy]

And those authors are quite correct in believing that. As long as I create something and never ever show or give it to anyone else, it is also not part of the public domain, at least not in any meaningfull way.


It's not important whether you never show it or give it to anyone else, because nothing you create will be so unique that some other individual won't eventually create something very similar to it. By granting you a monopoly on a creation, copyright law prohibits others from expressing the idea behind your creation in same manner as you thus removing that expression from the public domain.

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[SillyNickName4me]

It's not important whether you never show it or give it to anyone else, because nothing you create will be so unique that some other individual won't eventually create something very similar to it.

That is a nice variation on the infinite number of monkeys randomly banging away on keyboards...

It is true given infinite time and people. In reality both time and people are limited.

In other words, while there is definitely a chance of someone else creating it instead, there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will actually happen.

There are many works of which the equal still has to be created, despite them having existed for hundreds or even thousands of years, and not just because they were already created. There have been many people that could not have been aware of the existance of those works (realize that for most of human history, long distance communications were virtually non existant, and where they existed they were very limited and slow), yet their equal was never created.

Hence there is some historic evidence suggesting that at least some works will be created only once.

This is also pretty easy to understand. A creative work is the product of its creator(s) and their circumstances. Chances on the exact same conditions repeating themselves are pretty low.

Of course the 'complexity' of the work and the amount of influence of circumstances on its creator(s) play quite some role in this.

By granting you a monopoly on a creation, copyright law prohibits others from expressing the idea behind your creation in same manner as you thus removing that expression from the public domain.

If copyright law would work, it would withhold my work from the public domain for a limited time, not remove it permanently. If I never ever show it to anyone, it won't enter the public domain at all.

Also, if you could prove that you came to the same expression completely independently, copyright law might very well not apply since you neither copied or derived from my work. This is pretty difficult if not impossible to show in most cases of course.

But what is your point? Anything I keep completely to myself never enters the public domain in any meaningful way, regardless of copyright because it does not become available to anyone. That someone else might create something similar at some point in time is not going to change that at all.

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[EzInKy]

But what is your point? Anything I keep completely to myself never enters the public domain in any meaningful way, regardless of copyright because it does not become available to anyone. That someone else might create something similar at some point in time is not going to change that at all.

As things stand now, you would be able to sue the independent creator despite your work not have being distributed.

Re:So when will the US pay *us* back?

[SillyNickName4me]

As things stand now, you would be able to sue the independent creator despite your work not have being distributed.

That is a good point, I can indeed sue.

However, it will be relatively easy for the independent author to show that she didn't copy or derive from my work, and I'll have a hard time showing that it is in fact my original work, so chances on actually winning the case aren't very big.

WTO should say

[jhines]

And you the US, are gonna do WHAT about the on-line gambling issue that didn't go your way?

Re:WTO should say

[erroneous]

Exactly.

The USA's record of obeying WTO rulings that have gone against it is absolutely abysmal.

The fact that they are running to a body that they themselves have made toothless shows that their influence over China has waned to virtually nil.

They've been the only global superpower for close to two decades now, but China and India are very rapidly joining that group and the US is going to have to get used to much, much less going their way.

Re:WTO should say

[*weasel]

Probably the same thing we did about the US import duties on steel.

We'll bitch and kvetch and stall. And eventually we'll give up if they're at all serious about it.

Re:WTO should say

[brkello]

And you the US, are gonna do WHAT about the on-line gambling issue that didn't go your way?

Blow you up? EMP your servers? We have ways.

Just one question:

[ilovegeorgebush]

Who cares?

MOD Parent UP

[Don_dumb]

Exactly, this is another case of classic US unilateralism. The US government use the UN, WTO and other international groups to get their own way with the rest of the world but then ignore those same groups when the rest of the world has its own issues.

I always remember when some US official was asked why the US didn't recognise the International court of Justice, he replied "because this would allow other nations to bring trials against OUR leaders". The US just doesn't get the idea of "international cooperation", you can't just use collaboration to get your own way without compromise. Perhaps it would help if the US realised that it isn't always right.

Re:MOD Parent UP

[drgonzo59]

It's alright. US is already behind as far as technological progess goes. Our school systems are crap, our students math and science scores rank near the bottom of the civilized nation's scores. We have been in a stupid war for the last 5 years or so, we have overspent our money, our president is a moron and we are so scared of terrorists that we threw away democracy and freedom and put babies on the no-fly lists. Call me pessimistic and alarmist, but I see this country going downhill. It was a great country, it reached it's peak and now it is on a long an steady decline.

I think US will be in the position to bully others only for so long. Pretty soon we might have to be the ones taking orders...

Re:MOD Parent UP

[Anonymous Coward]

You would think that given the UN and International Court crap was made by the US that they would have made it compatible with their own system.

Re:MOD Parent UP

[elrous0]

All the U.S. has to do is tell the Chinese that the pirates are pro-democracy. That will solve everything.

Re:MOD Parent UP

[xtracto]

Or how the USA wanted to make a "north american union" ala European Union but of course the USA wanted all the advantages but didnt liked the idea of free immigration and things like that...

Re:MOD Parent UP

[PMW]

"this is another case of classic US unilateralism"

Whoa, whoa, there cowboy. This is not "US unilateralism" this is "US is playing by the accepted international rules". The WTO has rules and procedures for trade and resolving disputes. That's the whole reason why it was created. It's always been a multi-national organization. China read the rules and ASKED TO JOIN KNOWING THE RULES AHEAD OF TIME. They knew what they were getting into. They agreed "Yes, you can sue us in WTO courts". And now it's happening, not a big shock. The US has complained to them for years and years about pirating, and they didn't change. So now the US is suing. The US isn't breaking the system, this is how the system is supposed to work. Claiming that this is "unilateralism" is like saying I'm a "unilateralist" if my neighbor smashes my car window and I sue him in court. That's not acting unilaterally, that's acting within the system. The US has been successfully sued under WTO rules many times, where the countries that sued us unilateralists? So don't cry foul now when China's being hit.

And for all the people who say, "How dare the US sue over issue X, don't they realize they're violating Y and Z?", you need to learn more about the WTO and trade disputes. Essentially all the member of the WTO break the rules to some degree or another and the more they trade the more they break. That's just the reality of trade. Countries just have to pick and choose their fights in the WTO. The reason why they added a court system to the WTO rules was because in the past trade disputes always break down into an endless series of arguments about which country is more "justified" in their actions. It's like some bad argument between married couples:

    Husband: "What happened to your car? Why is it in the shop? Did you forget to check the oil again?"
    Wife: "Well I don't know, I was too busy picking up Timmy at school because you forgot to get him!"
    Husband: "Well I forget things because I can't sleep due to your snoring all night."
    Wife: "Snoring? How can you hear me snoring when you're drunk all the time?"
    Husband: "I drink so I don't have to hear you nag."
    Wife: "I wouldn't nag if you'd just fix the porch."
    Husband: "I never wanted to get that porch in the 1st place."
    Wife: "Well I never wanted to move here"
    Etc.

Trade disputes go the same way. There's an endless list of potential complaints with both sides trying to act more righteous. Let's just try to stick to the subject at hand. China signed the treaties including treaties on pirating, China is violating the treaties, the US is using the dispute mechanism that China agreed to. It's all on the up and up.

Re:MOD Parent UP

[adsl]

I think that just about every country, especially in Europe, takes action to reduce specific types of imports and has done for many decades. Thus highlighting a few specific examples of the USA's disagreement with the WTO proves nothing, but everyone does it, to some degree. We need IMHO to take a step back. The USA runs an absolutely MASSIVE trade deficit with China and allows huge importation of China products to be sold all across America. In return Chnina tries to replicate American products and software and breaks all copyright and patent rules along the way. If China doesn't do that instead of buying American cellular systems or paying for patents they attempt "work arounds" and come out with China only products to save them from buying from America. So the China/America trade relationship is massively one way, on all levels. Don't tell me that the deficit of trade is around $160Billion a year, because America doesn't produce anything, or have software patents, or copyright that Chnina doesn't need..... With all this in mind, after years of talks is it so surprising, or indeed wrong, that the USA should take China to the WTO re their endemic breaking of copyrights related to entertainement products such as music CDs and film DVDs?

Re:MOD Parent UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me pessimistic and alarmist

Dang, you can say that again...

Re:MOD Parent UP

[Don_dumb]

Good point, the regional union example is a good one but to be fair they were just following France's example. Just read about how the Common Agricultural Policy (known as the CAP) came into being.

Re:MOD Parent UP

[Don_dumb]

China may well be in the wrong and the US probably has a legitimate gripe. So perhaps it *is* better for the WTO to be seen as a proper organisation, that won't happen if the US ignores it wrt to online gambling in Antigua.

note to all - Just read my other comments on this thread, my criticism is not that the US ignores any international organisation, it is perfectly within its rights to do so. But it has no leg to stand on when others then ignore the same organisation (or in this instance its rules). My criticism is the blatant hypocrisy of joining the organisation and then using it while at the same time ignoring the same organisation.

Re:MOD Parent UP

[Anonymous Coward]

[blockquote]
Perhaps it would help if the US realized that it isn't always right.
[/blockquote]

the correct view is that what is right for US self interests may not be right for the self interest of all nations as a whole.

or, more truthfully...

the correct view is that what is right for a US politician's self interest may not be right for the self interests of all nations as a whole.

i'm pretty darn sure the US politicians are good at being "right" regarding their own self interest.

Re:MOD Parent UP

[Deliveranc3]

But have you seen Future Weapons!

MONEY WELL SPENT!

/note I'm Canadian.

Re:MOD Parent UP

[drgonzo59]

Well, we might be stupid, fat and lazy but at least we can kill efficiently now...I knew it wasn't all bad.

...

Yes, I am sarcastic..[sigh]

the Injust Trade Barriers - Oh My!

[Oriental_Hero]

LOL, I love it when the US protests against illegal trade barriers. Surely the foreign steel tariffs and more recently the Brazilian Ethanol/Biofuel tariffs do just the same...!

And someone else posted about China running over it's own ppl in APCs. Need I mention WACO or Rodney King or how about the recent Blue on Blue incident where the US Air Force with 2 A10s blows the crap out of a British Convoy that had the correct orange markers denoting friendlies?

All this proves though is that we can both relate completely unrelated but similar instances of injustice. We should stick to the topic in question which is trading rights between countries and the effect of piracy efforts.

Re:the Injust Trade Barriers - Oh My!

[Popsmear]

I assume you mean the 2 A-10s firing on Canadians, not British? This was a sad, yet accidental act.
How the hell does WACO relate to this anyway? It really has no bearing to what you are talking about. Overuse of force? LOL.
Rodney Kind is piece of human crap.

Re:the Injust Trade Barriers - Oh My!

[ohearn]

You bring up a good point whether you meant to or not. The US can easily recover a lot of the lost money and do wonders to even out the trade deficit by just putting a tarriff on all goods coming in from China. Of course I'm sure that the major retailers like Walmart would pull in every favor they had to stop such a thing.

Re:the Injust Trade Barriers - Oh My!

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you mean the 2 A-10s firing on Canadians, not British?

I think the GP is referring to the following:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_articl e_id=41408&in_page_id=34

Re:the Injust Trade Barriers - Oh My!

[Quila]

LOL, I love it when the US protests against illegal trade barriers. Surely the foreign steel tariffs and more recently the Brazilian Ethanol/Biofuel tariffs do just the same...!

These issues are already WTO complaints. People already have complaints against us, we already have complaints against others. We're just finally making a complaint against China because years of asking them nicely haven't worked.

Need I mention WACO or Rodney King or how about the recent Blue on Blue incident where the US Air Force with 2 A10s blows the crap out of a British Convoy that had the correct orange markers denoting friendlies?

Waco was bad, King deserved it, the convoy was an accident.

Re:the Injust Trade Barriers - Oh My!

[CmdrGravy]

No, he means British. It may well be they have done the same to Canadians but the recent example I'm aware of were two dumbfuck American pilots who having been told there were no targets in their area decided to blow the shit out of a British convoy which clearly had big orange signs on them. The dumbfuck pilots thought the big orange signs were concealed rockets and having blown the crap out of the convoy and then realised that maybe, just maybe, these were the friendly forces they had been told about in the area.

Sadly despite the pilots totally being in the wrong the US is refusing to hand them over to British justice to recieve their just deserts.

Re:the Injust Trade Barriers - Oh My!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, don't you need to mention the 'Great Leap Forward' as well? The US has nothing on China when committing atrocities against their own citizens.

Re:the Injust Trade Barriers - Oh My!

[Bryan Ischo]

This is such a gross misrepresentation of the incident that it doesn't even bear further comment.

Re:the Injust Trade Barriers - Oh My!

[kaatochacha]

That last line stole my thought almost completely!

What about chinas IP and Art?

[DuncanE]

I'm going to raise something which will probably be greeted with blank stares...

What about Chinas IP/Cultural penetration in the US? Where's the Chinese equivalent of Britney? What about the Chinese authors in the NY times best sellers list? They account for a large proportion of the world population.

Perhaps China feels that the Cartel media structures of the US are not fairly promoting foreign IP and art?

Re:What about chinas IP and Art?

[bradavon]

America always has been very closed to outside media. It's very hard for a European let alone Asian musician/film to break America. A few British (in particular) musicians break through and of course many British actors but try selling a British film in The States. From what I can tell Americans mostly are only interested in American media. I agree with your comment btw. The thing is there is a Chinese Britney but we'd never have heard of her.

Re:What about chinas IP and Art?

[digitalchinky]

I'm not sure that China (Or other neighbouring Asian countries) really think too much about American market penetration. The Chinese equivalent of Spears is alive and well right here in Asia with an audience numbering somewhere around the billion mark.

Re:What about chinas IP and Art?

[smack.addict]

Huh?

It's not America's job to produce Chinese art. Nor does it make any sense.

America should produce the art it wants to produce and China should either pay for it or not. But if not, the alternative is not to steal.

Re:What about chinas IP and Art?

[bkr1_2k]

Oh come now, there've been plenty of foriegn television (specifically British) and movies in the US. Of course, they're always remade with Americans, but we like foriegn media plenty. /sarcasm

Re:What about chinas IP and Art?

[DuncanE]

Sorry.. bad choice of words... Promoting was not what I meant. What if the US Media and IP cartels are direct preventing imports of Chinese (and other countries) IP and art? I'm sure a country the size of China could of produced its own operating system or at least a few best sellers in the book or music charts?

Let me speak plainly - US import tariffs both explicit and implicit are hypocritical.

Re:What about chinas IP and Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the movie that won an oscar without crediting the original producer? I think it was "The Departed". It is a complete ripped off from the Hong Kong movie. So yes, chinese pop culture are beginning to penetrate Americans. However, American are usually ignorant of another other culture but their own.

Re:What about chinas IP and Art?

[Lumpy]

please tell me where to even find it.

My daughter is HUGE in Japan Pop music. I found it easier to have a friend there buy Cd's and ship them to us than try to buy it here.

the USA is hostile to outside competition, hell there are craploads of great music in europe that you CANT get here, my last trip to London I smuggled back several CD's that friends all go nuts over and can not get legitimate copies of here.

Re:What about chinas IP and Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not exactly welcome though by the US that is currently either hostile towards China's actions and percieved threat of China as the country thats out to do anything it can to take first world jobs, or hostile towards the communist (in name at least) country that we've had an aversion to since it took power. Even the old Cold War feeling against anything that is communist is still somewhat persistent even if they aren't as pronounced as before. So, its hard to really see China making much leeway into the US market when the cultures are so differrent and along with whats produced, even with globalisation.

If you want some examples of the movies and media that have crossed over you can mostly point out at Hong Kong action stars like Jsckie Chan, Bruce Lee, Jet Li and others. There are some major movie sucesses like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragion as well. All of which are sold legally and bought as such in a state rather than blackmarket, the vast majority of the time. So until a movie from China is widely blackmarketed in the USA then its hard to not see why the US is upset. This "cartel strcture" I'm not seeing either. They might have tax breaks and other advatages but China can lend those same advantages to its own artists.

As for anything besides media there is very little thats been marketed and accepted in the US, Europe, etc. thats from China. So its a little difficult to black market anything that doesn't exist.

In all of this though, the fact that people are buying blackmarket shows a big pool of poor persons who simply can not buy the legitimate copies and police who probably buy it themselves. I still have a vivid memory of walking into a store in China filled with illegal copies of movies and music (I knew because it was "8 yuan a disc" as the managers told me) that was blasting 50 Cent and then seeing a policeman walking over from across the street. Instead of telling the customers to clear out of the obviously blackmarket store he took a quick and curious look in at me and a couple of other foreigners who were in there and then waved at the store owner and walked away.

Re:What about chinas IP and Art?

[foniksonik]

How many US citizens speak or read Mandarin? I'm thinking that foreign media is not such a hot seller here because we can't appreciate it... not won't, can't. OTOH content that doesn't need to be in english to be enjoyed (1980s Kungfu Movies, Software Code) sell fairly well here...

Piracy is such a way of life in some Asian . . .

[bradavon]

Piracy is such a way of life in some Asian countries that sellers blatantly sell copied DVDs and CDs on the streets without any perceived concern they could be arrested. The police completely turn a blind eye. In Thailand and Malaysia it's so blatant it's ridiculous. They even have many DVDs you cannot even buy in the respective country due to not being released or even banned, films banned or censored by the Thai censors are regularly available completely uncut. The sellers do nothing to even hide what they're doing. This barely happens period in Europe or North America, why? Because the police actually crack down, close down and prosecute bootleggers. You may see the odd market seller but that's it. Interestingly Japan has created an expensive limited edition culture that you'd think would help piracy but instead people prefer to own official merchandise.

Apparently RIAA lost hope in people of U.S.

[unity100]

you there in u.s. have been putting quite a fight lately in lawsuits. you are not easily intimidated and fooled as before. its becoming costly.

and china is a bigger market. country is already repressive. it wont be too hard to force down exorbitant prices to 1.5 billion people there.

tsk tsk tsk. bad americans you. no soup for you.

Re:Apparently RIAA lost hope in people of U.S.

[smack.addict]

Sorry to break it to you, but stealing IP is bad.

Bad China.

Tsk Tsk Tsk.

Re:Apparently RIAA lost hope in people of U.S.

[unity100]

Sorry to break it to you, but forcing exorbitant prices for products that cost pitiful to produce through practical monopoly is worse.

Re:Apparently RIAA lost hope in people of U.S.

[smack.addict]

No, it's not.

Price is not a product of the cost of production. It is a function of the value people see in it. If they don't want to pay the cost of the IP, they don't get it.

Re:Apparently RIAA lost hope in people of U.S.

[cHALiTO]

Well, if I want something, but not enough to pay the ridiculous sum they ask for it, I pirate it :)

Re:Apparently RIAA lost hope in people of U.S.

[smack.addict]

Well, if I want something, but not enough to pay the ridiculous sum they ask for it, I pirate it :)

And that makes you a thief.

Re:Apparently RIAA lost hope in people of U.S.

[cHALiTO]

No, it makes me a "pirate". Arr!!

Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[Sycraft-fu]

But the world court thing is somewhat sticky because it gets in to constitutional issues. The Constitution is the highest law in the US, above even federal. It can only be changed by a 67% majority vote in congress, and then a vote from 75% of the states. Well, among other things, it guarantees citizens certain rights that the government can't take away (not that it doesn't stop them from trying from time to time). However if you say the world court has jurisdiction over US citizens, over the supreme court, then you are subjecting them to a court that doesn't recognise those rights. Not that they might not have a similar set, but the Constitution is pretty clear on this point.

That's the real issue here, but it highlights a problem with things like a world court. It is hard to have something like a world government when the world can't agree on what kind of laws it should have. I'm going to guess China has a real different idea of what speech should be criminal than the US does. Thus it is kinda hard to have a single judicial system that both would be under.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[EzInKy]

The Constitution is the highest law in the US, above even federal. It can only be changed by a 67% majority vote in congress, and then a vote from 75% of the states.


Actually the States can amend the Constitution without Congressional interference by holding another Constitutional Convention.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[Anonymous Coward]

So the constitution doesn't allow it. So what? You could change the constitution if you really wanted. Lots of other countries with constitutions have managed to recognise the world court.
To everyone else in the world, this just comes across as "we don't care about justice, we'll do as we damned well like".

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[SillyNickName4me]

However if you say the world court has jurisdiction over US citizens, over the supreme court, then you are subjecting them to a court that doesn't recognise those rights. Not that they might not have a similar set, but the Constitution is pretty clear on this point.

There are a few problems with this reasoning.

First of all, if the USA deals with USA citizens commiting war crimes or the other things the ICC deals with, then the ICC never comes into play. It only becomes a problem when the USA refuses to deal with war crimes or similar commited by its own citizens.

The ICC is a last resort for those cases where countries refuse to deal with things themselves.

The USA (as usual according to many) has had no problem whatsoever forcing such things onto others (going back to at least the end ofWorld War II, and much more recently, Serbia).

So, again the USA wants to force things onto others, while being exempt from those things itself. What is more, they want to be able to let war criminals go unpunished if that comes in handy for whatever reason.

because of this, I find the constitutional argument a weak one at best, a theoretical argument that as long as the US justice system works properly will never ever become more then theoretical.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[RSquaredW]

The problem, of course, is that some one-third of the countries in the world are "free", according to Freedom House. This makes any international system subject to the concerted actions of blocs of undemocratic nations. Look at the UN Human Rights Commission, which has made almost all of its injunctions against Israel, rather than Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, or Uzbekistan - amongst others - which deserve far more criticism. Why? Because the OIC votes as a bloc to block (heh!) punitive measures against its members and affiliates, and to ram forward its own agendas.

The ICC would be subject to similar pressures - it wouldn't be Robert Mugabe standing trial, but Tony Blair (for example, and no matter what you think of Blair's decision to go along with the invasion, he's no Mugabe) - the U.S. fears frivolous accusations being given the weight of international law. We (the U.S.) should have no obligation to join an unjust international association just for the sake of being "international".

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[gordo3000]

because I'm sure the Jews in Europe, Chinese or Koreans in East asia, or the ethnic Albanians in Serbia would never call for some form of court to hold people to crimes. no, it was the US because the US had so much to gain in any of those circumstances.....

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[SillyNickName4me]

The problem, of course, is that some one-third of the countries in the world are "free", according to Freedom House. This makes any international system subject to the concerted actions of blocs of undemocratic nations. Look at the UN Human Rights Commission, which has made almost all of its injunctions against Israel, rather than Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, or Uzbekistan - amongst others - which deserve far more criticism. Why? Because the OIC votes as a bloc to block (heh!) punitive measures against its members and affiliates, and to ram forward its own agendas.

Hmm.. you mean like how the USA uses its veto every time any kind of punitive action against Israel is proposed?

Pot, meet kettle.

The ICC would be subject to similar pressures - it wouldn't be Robert Mugabe standing trial, but Tony Blair (for example, and no matter what you think of Blair's decision to go along with the invasion, he's no Mugabe)

Robert Mugabe should and hopefully will be dealt with by his own people. Same for Tony Blair. And I fully agree that Mugabe is a criminal, while I don't see that as clearly with regards to Tony Blair.

What you ignore in your reasoning however is that as long as the UK deals with this itself, the ICC is effectively powerless.

- the U.S. fears frivolous accusations being given the weight of international law. We (the U.S.) should have no obligation to join an unjust international association just for the sake of being "international".

No, you should join it and help it being a real platform for justice.

So far there are absolutely no incidents regarding the ICC that suggest your fear holds any water, rather, the opposite seems true.

The ICC is relatively small and has a limited capacity. The risk of frivolous lawsuits actually being accepted by the ICC is virtually zero as a result.

At any rate, sorry to say, but your opinion doesn't seem to be based on actual facts, rather it seems based on what would properly be called FUD.

Now, if the argument would be to disqualify countries from filing charges at the ICC unless they meet certain criteria of proper and fair government, that would be an entirely different story.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[SillyNickName4me]

I'm afraid your idea about history is a bit off..

because I'm sure the Jews in Europe, Chinese or Koreans in East asia, or the ethnic Albanians in Serbia would never call for some form of court to hold people to crimes. no, it was the US because the US had so much to gain in any of those circumstances.....

The USA and the USSR setup the Neurenburg trials, (imho rightfully) forcing those who were in charge of the Nazi regime to submit to it, eventho those people often acted in line with the laws and constitution of their country, which also never signed up to such an international trinunal or court.

It was not the jews, not the Cinese, not the Koreans, not even the gypsies doing this, they had no power to do so. They may have helped with ffiling charges, but the USA was most definitely one of the big players that forced tis situation with their military might.

With regards to Serbia, you seem to not know what those cases are about at all. Ever heard about Bosnia? Kroatia?
Again it was the USA using its military ight to force Serbia to comply and extradite some of its leaders to face trial.
Albanians did not play a role in this at all, rather, they are still involved in a conflict over if they live in a province of Serbia or in an independent country.

I am not at all saying the USA was wrong to do so. I am however saying that if they believe this can be forced onto others, they must accept that it can be forced onto them, and actually agreeing with the concept of international justice would indeed make their own actions a lot easier to justify.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[RSquaredW]

I don't disagree about your last point.

Robert Mugabe should and hopefully will be dealt with by his own people. Same for Tony Blair. And I fully agree that Mugabe is a criminal, while I don't see that as clearly with regards to Tony Blair.

What you ignore in your reasoning however is that as long as the UK deals with this itself, the ICC is effectively powerless.

Which is what I'm trying to get at - Blair shouldn't be "dealt with" by his own country's justice system, as he hasn't really done anything criminal; Mugabe can't be, because he's a tyrannical dictator. The UK (and the US) already have robust, mature and independent criminal justice systems...many LDCs and dictatorial regimes do not. The fear here, and I don't think it qualifies as FUD, is that placing the US under the influence of a system that could place both Blair and Mugabe in similar jeopardy (or worse, Blair but not Mugabe) would be immoral. I use the HRC as an example of how that could happen.

As far as your point about the US veto and Israel: yes, the US is very protective of Israel, but I hesitate to put the Israelis on the same level as the other nations I mentioned. It's a matter of scale.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[gordo3000]

just so you know...

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_g enocide.htm

the ethnic Muslims that were the targets of the genocide were ethnic Albanians. its why I said that.

Now, if you want to call the Nuremberg trials an international court system(as was implied by the GP) then you would have to ignore the fact that no person put on trial was part of a country that signed such a treaty. as that was inferred by the GP, I merely said that as an international court, to say the US wanted to apply the rules for its own gains and benefits is a foolish thing to assert because there were no gains.

Now, just as the US has forced others to comply with international laws, any country that wants to have some US person put on trial can force the US to do it in exactly the same way..... I'm not saying its fair to the little guy but then again, that wasn't the point of any of those institutions.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[Itchyeyes]

Oh please... one can make a myriad of logical arguments for disliking the US, however yours is not one of them. Any representative government that submits itself to something other than the will of the people who it represents is failing in its primary duty. When American law and international law conflict, the US government's duty is to its citizens, not to some international community. The same goes for any democratic government.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[dave420]

Doesn't the international court of justice just try people for doing stuff towards other countries? I didn't think it gave a damn about issues of freedom of speech of member nations' citizens interacting with other citizens in their own country, just if those same citizens (or leaders) start fucking with, say the fictional country of Schmiraq I just made up. It's not supposed to be a global law governing everyone's day-to-day actions, just a way for one nation to solve a problem with another nation without reaching for the gun.

Regardless of the implications for the US, if the US is not willing to participate in the global community with any responsibility, it should stop crying when it thinks others aren't doing so. That's hypocrisy.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[bogjobber]

So, again the USA wants to force things onto others, while being exempt from those things itself.

Welcome to the real world. Any country with power does this. There is no idealism in international politics. What are you gonna tell me next, that the countries that founded the UN hold a disproportionate amount of power in that body? Countries that already have nukes want to prevent those they dislike from gaining them? Say it ain't so!

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[JesseMcDonald]

When American law and international law conflict, the US government's duty is to its citizens, not to some international community. The same goes for any democratic government.

Exactly so. And, by extension, when state law and federal law conflict, the state's duty is to its citizens, not to some federal community.

And when local law and state law conflict, the local government's duty is to its citizens, not to some state community.

And -- last but not least -- when individual morals and local law conflict, the individual's duty is to itself, not to some local community.

The same argument that upholds national sovereignty can be trivially applied to individual sovereignty as well. You can't (consistently) have one without the other. Either individuals are sovereign in their dealing with other individuals, or there can be no such thing as national sovereignty. If local, state, and federal governments are required to oversee interactions between individuals, then a world government is necessary to oversee interactions between nations. (Personally I would argue the opposite: the lack of necessity of a world government proves the lack of necessity for local/state/federal governments.)

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[SillyNickName4me]

Which is what I'm trying to get at - Blair shouldn't be "dealt with" by his own country's justice system, as he hasn't really done anything criminal;

Hmm, so you are his judge then?

You believe he didn't do anything wrong, others believe he did. Without proof from either side, the answer to the question if he did anything criminal remains open, but we assume innocense.

I still believe that this is upto a judge to determine. It may well be that such charges will be dismissed on good grounds, and that would als be end of story. Seeing the controvery here I don't see anything wrong however wit the UK justice system dealing with this (note that dealing with doesn't mean that they must find him guilty, it mens they must properly handle the case to determine guilt or innocense)

Mugabe can't be, because he's a tyrannical dictator.

Tell that to mister Pinnochet (spelling?) or quite a few other dictators whoms reign ended before their life ended.

The UK (and the US) already have robust, mature and independent criminal justice systems...

Better then many places? sure. Anywhere near perfect? nope. Any guarantee that that will remain as good as it is? nope.

Are charges against mr. Bush and members of his government regarding possible war crimes ever going to be dealt with by the US justice system? I strongly doubt that, completely independent from how valid such charges might be.

This is a bit closer to the kind of situation where the ICC might become involved.

many LDCs and dictatorial regimes do not.

Just as a sidenote, the USA has been quite supportive of such governments for decades.. as long as they claim to be anti communism and nowadays anti terrorism. Goal justifies the means I guess..

The fear here, and I don't think it qualifies as FUD, is that placing the US under the influence of a system that could place both Blair and Mugabe in similar jeopardy (or worse, Blair but not Mugabe) would be immoral. I use the HRC as an example of how that could happen.

I believe you just argued that both places have a working justice system. Since the ICC only comes into play when that justice system fails to deal with such charges (note that deal can also mean that they are declared innocent, it means that it has to properly handle a case) I fail to see why this is not FUD.

As far as your point about the US veto and Israel: yes, the US is very protective of Israel, but I hesitate to put the Israelis on the same level as the other nations I mentioned. It's a matter of scale.

"Others are worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That my friend is not a valid argument.

With regards to if Israel is in the same league or not, its simply irrelevant. Israel is in blatant violation of the UN founding charter to which they are a party, and to many resolutions telling them to comply, and as a consequence punitive action against them is justified by the rules they themselves agreed to (and that the USA agreed to as well, not to mention that the USA was one of the major players in creating those rules).

Others who also violate those rules will have to be dealt with as well, no exceptions.

The problem here is really that the USA accuses others of things that they do themselves, and try to keep themselves and their close friends immune from any punishment, while having no problem using military force on others to make them comply or punnish them.

That situation won't last forever, and by prolonging it and doing it very blatantly, the price for it will only become higher and higher.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[miskatonic alumnus]

The Constitution is the highest law in the US, above even federal.

Not for long. GATS, MAI, and agreements of that ilk will ultimately spell the end of any kind of national sovereignty. Kiss your rights and the Constitution goodbye. But hey, at least you can enjoy the latest Madonna CD while your flesh rots away from the toxic chemical moat surrounding your trailer home.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[SillyNickName4me]

just so you know...

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_g enocide.htm

the ethnic Muslims that were the targets of the genocide were ethnic Albanians. its why I said that.

Good call there.

I don't think the Kroatians were tho, and it is quite unusual to refer to people from Bosnia as Albanians, but technically correct..

Now, if you want to call the Nuremberg trials an international court system(as was implied by the GP) then you would have to ignore the fact that no person put on trial was part of a country that signed such a treaty. as that was inferred by the GP, I merely said that as an international court, to say the US wanted to apply the rules for its own gains and benefits is a foolish thing to assert because there were no gains.

That is a very simplistic look at things.

The USA did not want to become involved in yet another world war in a few decades, and had a lot to gain by trying to impose justice because of that.

At any rate, I never claimed they did so purely for their own benefits and gains, but they did have no problem whatsoever forcing this onto a country, despite the fact that that country did never sign up to any treaties that created such a court.

Now, just as the US has forced others to comply with international laws, any country that wants to have some US person put on trial can force the US to do it in exactly the same way..... I'm not saying its fair to the little guy but then again, that wasn't the point of any of those institutions.

The point was to create a proper way of dealing with conflicts and prevent them from turning into wars. As soon as you make it unfair to (a very large) part of the world that will fail, and guess what, that is exactly what happened.

Hence, it definitely was the point of the UN at least to make it fair also for the small guys. The same applies to the ICC.

You would be a lot more correct when talking about the WTO or G8.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[asninn]

That's an interesting point, but shouldn't it mean that the USA would have to disregard the ICC and all related bodies and international laws *completely* instead of selectively? There is no a priori difference between the US constitution and that of, say, Chad (which I'm just using as an example!); if one is valid and trumps international laws and treaties that the country enters into, for example, then the other does, too, at least a priori (i.e., unless there are specific provisions that state that this is not the case).

So the USA would then certainly have to lobby against any case brought before this court (or similar bodies such as the ICJ) on the grounds that these courts do not actually have jurisdiction over the defendants - because the law from which these courts derive their justification cannot trump the rights guaranteed to people by the states they are citizens of. (In fact, given that the US constitution *recognises* rights that are thought to be inherent in all humans rather than granting them, the USA would probably have to oppose even those cases where the country in question does not guarantee the rights of the defendant to not have to appear in front of courts such as these).

Finally, the USA would also not have been able to participate in things like the Nuremberg trials then; at the very least, after they did participate, they should've reverted their position on them by now (something that would be doubly true considering that things like "crimes against humanity" or "genocide", for example, were concepts that were not even considered prior to Nuremberg).

I personally think that this would be a bad idea, but it would be a sound position, at least. In reality, though, it sure seems to be true that the USA apply selective reasoning and freely use tools such as these courts when it suits them while at the same time claiming immunity for themselves and their own people - and it's that dichotomy which is the problem, not the claims of immunity as such.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[Anonymous Coward]

So why does the US demand that other nations accept
the writ of the UN, WTO, ....?

Do as I say, not as I do. That's why the world hates the US

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[flosofl]

And, by extension, when state law and federal law conflict, the state's duty is to its citizens, not to some federal community.

And when local law and state law conflict, the local government's duty is to its citizens, not to some state community.

And -- last but not least -- when individual morals and local law conflict, the individual's duty is to itself, not to some local community.

You just gave a great example of reductio ad absurdum .

Specifically, your chain of logic fails on its first link: "And, by extension, when state law and federal law conflict, the state's duty is to its citizens, not to some federal community"

There is no "federal community". There is a federal government. And in some matters the state is subordinate to the federal government as spelled out in the US Constitution. And local municipalities are subordinate to states as spelled out in their constitutions. And so on. So your argument is not well thought out.

Additionally, the relationship between state and federal is *not* the same as US and the international community. In the US the relationship between states and the federal govnerment are determined by the US Constitution (well, the interpretation of the Constitution by the Judicial Branch). Our relationship with other countries and the international community as whole are bound by Alliances, Treaties, and Agreements. However, such relationships are superseded by the US Constitution. If a treaty violates or nullifies a portion of the Constitution, that treaty is void in the US.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[Anonymous Coward]

'because of this, I find the constitutional argument a weak one at best, a theoretical argument that as long as the US justice system works properly will never ever become more then theoretical.'

It's not a weak argument, it's simple fact. The federal government does not have the authority to supercede the Constitutional powers given to the states nor the people. This isn't the same thing as a bilateral extradition agreement, where the crimes in question are committed in the jurisdictional context of another sovereign power. This is subjugating the rights of a U.S. citizen (not the U.S. government) to an international body in any context.

Beyond all that, if you want to see what kind of utterly ineffectual enforcement comes from an omnibus world government, take a gander at Iran and Darfour. Thank god we have the UN looking out for the little guy, let's expand the idea to interfere with our citizens' rights!!

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[SillyNickName4me]

Welcome to the real world. Any country with power does this. There is no idealism in international politics.

And that makes it right?

Not to mention that no such country survives on the long term. Count on those who feel wronged to come get their revenge.

What are you gonna tell me next, that the countries that founded the UN hold a disproportionate amount of power in that body? Countries that already have nukes want to prevent those they dislike from gaining them? Say it ain't so!

Still doesn't make it right, rather, it is one of the root causes of the UN failing in many things.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[JesseMcDonald]

And local municipalities are subordinate to states as spelled out in their constitutions. And so on.

And there your chain of logic fails. Local and state governments may indeed have placed themselves in a position of voluntary subservience to the federal government through their constitutions (essentially making them subsidiaries of the federal government), but no such relationship exists between individuals and any level of government. My statement that "when individual morals and local law conflict, the individual's duty is to itself, not to some local community" stands on its own as a parallel of your claim regarding democractic governments (in this case a government of one), and does not depend on the prior two statements. I am willing to admit that the relationship between local, state, and federal governments may be different than my post implied, but my conclusion still stands stands:

If . . . governments are required to oversee interactions between individuals, then a world government is necessary to oversee interactions between nations. . . . [T]he lack of necessity of a world government proves the lack of necessity for local/state/federal governments.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[Anonymous Coward]

But the US constitution is an outdated document written by a load of murderous rebels who were trying to justify an expansion into the native-held land and indulge in a spot of theft and genocide.

It perpetuates the attitude that if you don't like someone or something you should start shooting.

I would have thought you would be anxious to get rid of it as soon as possible?

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[SillyNickName4me]

It's not a weak argument, it's simple fact. The federal government does not have the authority to supercede the Constitutional powers given to the states nor the people.

It is a weak argument first of all because that same federal government has done that a lot anyway. Using an argument only when it is convenient makes the argument pretty weak.

This isn't the same thing as a bilateral extradition agreement, where the crimes in question are committed in the jurisdictional context of another sovereign power. This is subjugating the rights of a U.S. citizen (not the U.S. government) to an international body in any context.

Too bad you are also citizens of a larger place called earth. You can refuse to be that, but you'll have to move off the planet first.

Beyond all that, if you want to see what kind of utterly ineffectual enforcement comes from an omnibus world government, take a gander at Iran and Darfour. Thank god we have the UN looking out for the little guy, let's expand the idea to interfere with our citizens' rights!!

That argument would hold if the USA and its "we are exempt from any rules" wasn't one of the major causes of that inefficiency (read carefully, I am NOT saying the only one)

With regards to Iran, if you are from the USA, you have to put in a lot of efford to get any proper information about Iran. For example, the USA and its policies regarding Iran are a very big factor in why Iran is what it is today.

This starts back in the days of the Sjah. The USA was a strong supporter of him, despite blatant human rights violations and oppression.

The result was the Islamic revolution and lots of bad feelings towards everyone who had supported the tirant.

We all know what this resulted in, occupation of the embasy and a hostage crisis.

That Iran has turned into one of the more democratic countries in the Islamic world is simply never ever mentioned in the USA, and rather then carefully supporting this, the USA has been calling Iran all kinds of things, thereby just confirming the already existing feelings in Iran that the USA is in fact an oppressor (or at least a big supporter of it).

Now, the Iranians have voted in a clown as president, but the USA is hardly in a position to comment on that, seeing their own president.

Last but not least, ever heard about the non-proliferation treaty? Ever figured out the ideas behind it?

The obvious idea is to limit nukes to the few countries that already had them before the treaty came into place.

The USA and European countries have ignored that with regards to those they regarded as friends (Israel) or usefull (Pakistan). It is no surprise that a country that feels threatened by those who have nukes will strive to obtain them as well. Do I think they should be allowed to? no. But I do believe that if you deal with them, you also have to deal with the others that have them despite that same 'holy' treaty, which means Israel, Pakistan and India (and obviously North Korea, but that is an entirely different issue)

That said, while I would not be surprised if Iran tries to develop nukes, there is no proof of that whatsoever, there are suspicions t best.

Also, while I don't think the current Pakistani government will go nuts and use nukes, there is a substantial danger of that country being overrun by islamic fundamentalists of a kind very similar to those who blew up the world trade center. For that simple reason removing nukes from Pakistan should have a much higher priority then Iran.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[Don_dumb]

Welcome to the real world. Any country with power does this. There is no idealism in international politics. What are you gonna tell me next, that the countries that founded the UN hold a disproportionate amount of power in that body? Countries that already have nukes want to prevent those they dislike from gaining them? Say it ain't so!

No of course I am not that naïve. My point is that the US actually expects to always get its own way, all of the time without ever making concessions. Everyone and every organisation obviously work in their own interests but to get anything done in society we have to make compromises. If the US wants to see the WTO slap China it should itself abide by the WTO wrt Antigua.

I suppose you are one of those people who when presented with an unfair law or rule simply respond- "Well, life's not fair!"

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[shaitand]

'Which is what I'm trying to get at - Blair shouldn't be "dealt with" by his own country's justice system, as he hasn't really done anything criminal; Mugabe can't be, because he's a tyrannical dictator. The UK (and the US) already have robust, mature and independent criminal justice systems'

What about George Bush? The 'mature' US criminal justice system has failed to deal with him.

You can both talk about the merits of an international court all day long. The truth is that the US doesn't ignore mandates from international organizations on some sort of moral or ethical ground. The US ignores them when they don't suit because the US has the power to do so and there is nobody to hold them to account. Your typical EU nation commands resources comparable to a US state, short of the entire EU banding together it doesn't have the ability to present a credible threat to the US in response for non-compliance with any mandate or resolution.

As long as the US represents a greater military and economic power than most of the other members combined, any international authority will be nothing but a farce.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[Grym]

Hmm.. you mean like how the USA uses its veto every time any kind of punitive action against Israel is proposed? Pot, meet kettle.

Oh please. You're telling me that you don't see a difference between the U.S. exerting it's power to protect an allied--yet controversial (to put it lightly)--democratic country and tyrannical regimes voting reciprocally to protect each other? The former is politics (maybe even dirty politics), the latter is a sick joke that parades itself as "international justice."

As an aside, I've never understood why any and every member state, regardless of size or legitimacy gets an equal vote in the general assembly. It's madness. Democracy is a great (maybe even the best) framework for organizing and ruling people, but why and from where do people get this mistaken idea that a democratic system (like the general assembly) is an appropriate way for countries to interact with each other?

No, you should join [the ICC] and help it being a real platform for justice.

Call me cynical, but I honestly cannot imagine the U.N. being a true force for justice in its currently flawed and corrupt condition. Now, I'm not so cynical as to believe that the U.N serves no purpose and does no good, but at the same time, I agree with the United States' hesitancy to give sweeping, unchecked powers to a broken institution.

-Grym

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[aeschenkarnos]

I expect Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic could have made up Constitutions of their own and pointed to it as a "high authority" somehow exempting them from external influence, too. In the end power is what matters; but there are forms of power other than military and economic. International goodwill is one of these forms.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[SillyNickName4me]

Oh please. You're telling me that you don't see a difference between the U.S. exerting it's power to protect an allied--yet controversial (to put it lightly)--democratic country

A few details here...

Not to invoke Godwin, but Hitler got to power through (ab)use of a democratic system. What is more, initially, he was seen by many as an ally against communism. Are you arguing that his regime should have been protected maybe? I believe the results of a policy of appeasement was bad enough already.

Iran is maybe not a democracy to western standards, but is way more democratic then most of the Islamic world, yet its a member of the axis of evil according to the USA.

The Palestinian territories have a verifiable democratic system even to western standards, how about them?

When Israel violates human rights and international law, they need to be dealt with, that there are others whom are worse does in no way change that.

and tyrannical regimes voting reciprocally to protect each other? The former is politics (maybe even dirty politics), the latter is a sick joke that parades itself as "international justice."

Given what I said above, and given that none of those tyranical regimes have any veto power in the security council, whereas the USA does, your argument is seriously flawed.

And yes, of course I do see the difference between say Israel and Sudan, no argument there, but BOTH should be dealt with, and if you don't deal with obvious and long standing issues because of protecting your friends then you also lose any right to demand that others are being dealt with. The actual severity of the issues is hardly relevant for that.

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[Grym]

Not to invoke Godwin, but Hitler got to power through (ab)use of a democratic system. What is more, initially, he was seen by many as an ally against communism. Are you arguing that his regime should have been protected maybe?

Clearly not. Voting for the Nazi party was, in many ways, a vote of no-confidence in what had become (for various reasons) a paralytic democratic process. In fact, Hitler's entire platform was that he would dissolve the legislature once in power, and that's exactly what he did. Germany, after the takeover of the Nazi regime was about as far from a democratic nation as it could be. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a historian prepared to call it a democratic state at the point you're discussing.

Iran is maybe not a democracy to western standards, but is way more democratic then most of the Islamic world, yet its a member of the axis of evil according to the USA... The Palestinian territories have a verifiable democratic system even to western standards, how about them?

As much as I loathe the term "axis of evil", I think you're missing the important point of my post. The important metric is how legitimate and responsible a government is, but that's not to say that the only legitimate countries are democratic or that all (pseudo-)democratic governments are responsible. Palestine may be a legitimate democracy and maybe it is true that Hamas adequately represents the will of the Palestinian people, but that's where any academically honest comparisons end. How many Western countries can you name whose official government platform is the stated destruction of another state or whose major political party is, by most definitions, a terrorist organization? And don't get me started on Iran, agent-provocateur of the Apocalypse. They've been about as responsible as a smoker near a powder keg in the past few years with their insistence on obtaining nuclear weapons, promotion of instability and terrorism within Iraq, and outrageously provacative statements from their figurehead, President Ahmadinejad.

And yes, of course I do see the difference between say Israel and Sudan, no argument there, but BOTH should be dealt with, and if you don't deal with obvious and long standing issues because of protecting your friends then you also lose any right to demand that others are being dealt with. The actual severity of the issues is hardly relevant for that.

Why shouldn't the severity or context be relevant? The Sudanese government is committing ethnic genocide! Why should the third world's hatred of the Jewish people and--by proxy Israel--effectively mean that civilized people can't condemn even the most egregious of atrocities like what's going on in Sudan?

-Grym

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[SillyNickName4me]

Clearly not. Voting for the Nazi party was, in many ways, a vote of no-confidence in what had become (for various reasons) a paralytic democratic process.

It was for many a vote for what they saw as the only viable way to keep the communists out of government. You are also correct however that for many it was a vote of no-confidence.

That doesn't change the point that a democratic society can decide to do very bad things.

In fact, Hitler's entire platform was that he would dissolve the legislature once in power, and that's exactly what he did. Germany, after the takeover of the Nazi regime was about as far from a democratic nation as it could be. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a historian prepared to call it a democratic state at the point you're discussing.

That was the case after they won for the second time.

As much as I loathe the term "axis of evil", I think you're missing the important point of my post. The important metric is how legitimate and responsible a government is, but that's not to say that the only legitimate countries are democratic or that all (pseudo-)democratic governments are responsible.

No, it is to say that while democracy may provide legitimacy, it is not a guarantee for a responsible government, neither does it have a monopoly on responsible government.

Palestine may be a legitimate democracy and maybe it is true that Hamas adequately represents the will of the Palestinian people, but that's where any academically honest comparisons end.

It is similar to the earlier Nazi Germany example.

How many Western countries can you name whose official government platform is the stated destruction of another state or whose major political party is, by most definitions, a terrorist organization?

I believe the USA has at the very least destroyed or attempted to destroy a number of foreign governments and states. Currently, Cuba is the easy example of one of its targets. That it uses economic warfare instead of an invasion (oh wait, they tried that as well) does not change this at all. It is stated policy, and not a unique example of it either.

And don't get me started on Iran, agent-provocateur of the Apocalypse. They've been about as responsible as a smoker near a powder keg in the past few years with their insistence on obtaining nuclear weapons, promotion of instability and terrorism within Iraq, and outrageously provacative statements from their figurehead, President Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad is a clown, but I don't think Iran has a momopoly on having a clown as figurehead and president. I, and with me quite a large number of people, believe the same is true for the current president of the USA for example.

Not to mention that the USA is a substantial part of the cause of Iran being what it is.

Forgot about western support of the tyran that came before the Islamic revolution there?

How about western support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war? This despite the knowledge that Iraq used chemical weapons.

Don't get me wrong, I think Iran is currently on a bad path, but forgetting how they got there to begin with is a very good way of repeating the same mistakes over and over.

Why shouldn't the severity or context be relevant?

What should be relevant is if international law explicitly forbids it, and to some extent, if the country in question is a party to the treaties that established that international law.

Those conditions are true in both cases, so both cases should be dealt with.

The Sudanese government is committing ethnic genocide! Why should the third world's hatred of the Jewish people and--by proxy Israel--effectively mean that civilized people can't condemn even the most egregious of atrocities like what's going on in Sudan?

I never said they can't or shouldn't.

Your statement concerning hatred of the jews is often used as soon as anyone has any critical comments on Israel, but guess

Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. The US doesn't roll over at the first sign of trouble like Europe. You would all be speaking German right now if it wasn't for the US.

World War III

[night_flyer]

WWIII wont about oil or religion, it will be about copyright infringement

Re:World War III

[Anonymous Coward]

How? By dumping pirate dvd to each other?

Re:World War III

[eMbry00s]

All of you who modded this funny:

You may laugh now, but it won't be so funny when you're out there on the battlefield, screaming illegally copied (and then translated) jokes at the enemy.

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer?
Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.

Re:Piracy is such a way of life in some Asian . .

[EzInKy]

They even have many DVDs you cannot even buy in the respective country due to not being released or even banned, films banned or censored...


Since censorship and withholding information are bad making these DVDs available has to be a good thing.

To any neigh-sayers

[Anonymous Coward]

American hippocracy and chevaunism are enough to get the rest of the world get on their high horse.

The US was a great nation

[Opportunist]

With bold people pushing the frontiers. When "don't ask what your country can do for you" actually meant something, when it wasn't a blurb spinned by politicians, but actually heeded by them and even the industry, too. Great men and women who wanted to push the boundaries and make the nation (or humanity as a whole) better and more advanced.

Today, the US is what the rest of the "civilized" world is: Fat and afraid. Fat and lazy, unable and unwilling to lift a finger and not caring about tomorrow, not caring what happens to the world around them as long as they can get rich without having to do anything for it. Inventive? At best in the "how to get rich by doing nothing" department.

And afraid that this might change.

Btw, don't feel left out if you're not from the US. That's pretty much true for most of Europe, too. When I look around myself, all I see is fat, lazy and very frightened people.

Re:The US was a great nation

[pubjames]

Btw, don't feel left out if you're not from the US. That's pretty much true for most of Europe, too. When I look around myself, all I see is fat, lazy and very frightened people.

Speaking as a European, you may be right about fat and lazy, but the fear is just in the USA.

Re:The US was a great nation

[Opportunist]

You think? At least here, the "ohhh, fear, the terrorists are coming, we gotta build up (insert random surveillance shit here)" hype works wonders.

Even though I've never even seen a terrorist, nor that there was anything resembling at least a remote hint that somewhere close to here could have been some kind of peripheral indication of a possible threat in that area.

But "feeeear the terrorists" and everyone goes bonkers. Well, it might help that we do have a few immigrants from the near east and Turkey, and few people have ever met them and know more about them than that they sell revolving meat.

Re:The US was a great nation

[Illserve]

Speaking as a European, you may be right about fat and lazy, but the fear is just in the USA.

Speaking as an American living in Europe, you are an idiot.

Re:The US was a great nation

[Opportunist]

Sorry. Can we agree on "western" world?

Re:The US was a great nation

[MadMidnightBomber]

Btw, don't feel left out if you're not from the US. That's pretty much true for most of Europe, too. When I look around myself, all I see is fat, lazy and very frightened people.

No fair! You're probably in an office full of computer programmers!

Re:The US was a great nation

[mindstormpt]

Even so, nobody's as fat.

Re:The US was a great nation

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait? Maybe out of context, calling somebody an idiot is flamebait. But come on, the GP was essentially claiming that Europeans were fearless and Americans cowardly.

I'm not even exaggerating. Read it again. "The fear is just in the USA". The GP was exaggerating. And insulting exaggerations are very much flamebait.

Re:The US was a great nation

[CptNerd]

I thought the only fear the Europeans have is fear of the US...

Re:The US was a great nation

[laffer1]

Tell that to the UK. Some of their laws and actions after our 9/11 make me think we've got things good in the US. Well at least not as bad as the UK. At one time, England was one of the few places I wanted to go on vacation. Now, all I think about is the public cameras everywhere, the technology they were going to use to track motorists using RFID, etc. Its either fear or stupidity...

One thing I can say is that I miss my freedoms pre-9/11. The terrorists won, since most people gave up everything to be "safe". I'd rather take my chances on the attack they do one in 5-10 years than to give up everything. I'm in the minority here.

Re:The US was a great nation

[Don_dumb]

You are talking bollocks, in the UK this bastion of fear http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ has a readership of around 10% of the population.

Re:The US was a great nation

[drgonzo59]

This can also somehow go back to the fact that most people don't think rationally and don't know math and statistics very well. If they would just realize that they have a higher chance of slipping, falling and breaking their spine in the shower or drowning in their swimming pool than even seeing a terrorist in person, they would be better off. But they don't. So what we should be scared and afraid is our own stupidity not anything else. Right now our stupidity controls us. It can be an indirect control because the government and the big corporations can learn to control us because of our inablity to think rationally. They scream "OMG! TEH TERRORISTS!" and we hand them our freedom, our money and bend over for them to rape us any way they want. Yep, the terrorists won, we should at least have the smarts to realize that fact...

Re:The US was a great nation

[Opportunist]

I don't fear the US. I feel safe in the faith that they won't find us on the map.

Re:The US was a great nation

[Opportunist]

So? the "Kronen Zeitung" is the largest daily paper in Austria, the "BILD" is not much behind in Germany.

Both of them close to the SUN in quality.

Re:The US was a great nation

[Opportunist]

The fear is popping up everywhere. I'm in Europe. I can see what's left of our freedom erode away and people are happy and celebrate it as an increase of their security against terror.

Terror? Where? If it wasn't in the news, I wouldn't even know about it. What terror, for crying out loud? You see this rock? It protects you from tigers...

Re:The US was a great nation

[Don_dumb]

What I mean is that we in Europe have as much fear as the US. I gave the obvious UK example, your examples are probably just as good for all I know. The parent was just trolling.

Re:The US was a great nation

[Opportunist]

My problem with it all is that the fear hype is getting out of hand. Media are spinning it, 'cause fear sells, politicians pick it up because people are scared and they want a simple solution, and the simplest solution against fear and the loss of control is more control and more rigid regulations. They don't solve the underlying problem, but they give those people a good feeling of stability and normality, that someone is watching over then and keeps them from harm.

My usual response to some terror hype is "Terror? Where? Don't see any." And, quite bluntly, that's how it is here. If it weren't for the news, you wouldn't even know a thing about it. I know a lot of muslims here, who're (strangely enough, if you consider the amount of 'sleepers' we're supposed to have) simply normal people. They have a job, they drive a car, they watch football on TV and they root for their teams. So where are those towel-wearing, bomb-belt carrying car bombers?

In Iraq? No, really? Dude, if you came to my country and told me that you're the new chief, I'd blast you to hell and back too. And I don't care too much 'bout Allah.

Blank stares indeed

[Aaron England]

Foreign countries have to overcome a person's preference for entertainment from within their own culture as elements of the entertainment tend to get lost in translation. It just so happens, partly due to American's wealth that our entertainment business generates more revenue than most small countries. This means we spend a lot more money on production on average too. This is why you are far more likely to see an American television show played in a foreign country than the other way around. It's very hard to compete with that, but no one is stopping foreign states from promoting their art and culture.

They don't give a shit!

[qazsedcft]

Frankly China doesn't give a shit! If the US wants to impose sanctions they're going to be hurting themselves more than China. They can threaten all they like. China should just ignore them.

Re:They don't give a shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly China doesn't give a shit! If the US wants to impose sanctions they're going to be hurting themselves more than China. They can threaten all they like. China should just ignore them.

somebody tell bush that we need chinese investment more than the riaa needs extra cash and a feeling of omnipotent entertainment control.

i guess this may result in china curbing investment in T-bills and, therefore, interest rates in the US will head up - and hard. it isn't easy to spend so much more money than you bring in.

if china pulls out their investment in T-bills, it would likely have dire consequences for the US economy.

The US can't give a foot here.

[Opportunist]

Looking at the import/export bill, if they gave any leeway to the counterfeiters would be a desaster. Let's look at the import/export bill.

Agriculture? Well, the US has a lot of agriculture, no doubt. Still, it is highly dependent on imports and the exports don't mean a lot (especially with lots of them going to countries that won't ever pay).

Industry? Well, considering that it's way cheaper to produce in the far east, and with Japan and the other Tigers pretty much owning the high tech market (let's shroud the car industry in silence, to protect the guilty), it's not really a big source of foreign money.

Resources? Ever looked at that oil bill alone?

So what's left for exports from the US? Simple: Services and "virtual goods" (IP, content, information, entertainment).

Now, exporting services has a simple problem: You can't ship a haircut around the world. People have to come to your country with their money and spend it there. And if I look at the immigration requirements (even if I promise that I really, really wanna leave again, I wouldn't want to stay there longer than I have to, honestly, I have my ticket here...), I can understand that fewer and fewer people actually want to spend a vacation in a country where the gamble (whether you actually see more of it than a prison cell 'cause you remind someone of someone else) already starts at the airport.

So what's left is virtual property. Content and so on. That's still where the US shines. Movies and music is still a strong export article of the US. Computer programs (Windoze, anyone?), intellectual property and patents held by US corporations...

Imagine what the foreign trade balance would look like if the US backed off here.

Re:The US can't give a foot here.

[geekoid]

innovation.

We innovate the fuck out of everybody. That is the horse IP rides on. Wthout that, IP is nothing.

Re:The US can't give a foot here.

[Opportunist]

That's what IP and IP laws should be about.

What it actually is about is hampering competition. Company A claims some trivial patent so company B cannot use some trivial foundation to base its research upon without paying company A more money than it has for the actualy R&D.

That's not innovation, that's quite the opposite thereof. And countries without a braindead version of IP laws will quickly take over and overtake the US. Because every researcher worth his or her salt will flee the US towards countries where R&D is headed by scientists and not by lawyers.

Re:The US can't give a foot here.

[hunterx11]

Agriculture? Well, the US has a lot of agriculture, no doubt. Still, it is highly dependent on imports and the exports don't mean a lot (especially with lots of them going to countries that won't ever pay). The U.S. has a surplus of agriculture, and our subsidization of unnecessary production (and even of non-production) distorts the terms of trade in our favor. The protected agricultural exports of developed countries have been one of the major points of contention that led to the collapse of the Doha round of WTO talks in Cancún. The U.S. is only "highly dependent on imports" in agriculture in the sense that actually the opposite is true and you couldn't possibly be any more wrong.

Re:The US can't give a foot here.

[drgonzo59]

Wasn't there a new item that US does not lead the world in innovation and tech progress anymore. I believe it....

IP laws are so ridiculous here that they end up slowing down innovation rather than encouraging it. When you have patent hogs that all they do is accumulate overly generalized, broad patents, then sit and wait until someone uses them, then wait some more until 5 or 10 years pass and only then sue! "Oh, gee, we just noticed that, everyone is using a mouse pointing device and we had a patent for it filed in 1971, so we'll just sue the whole world for it and get rich?" I don't really see this modus operandi as being conducive to innovation, it is all just a get rich quick business...

Re:The US can't give a foot here.

[Opportunist]

How much coffee do you grow? How much of your meat is imported? How about Kiwis? Rice? Soy?

Sure, the US like many other nations would be able to survive without imports of food. We have a huge wheat overproduction as well. But the problem is, so does every "western" country. The international price for the stuff that grows "here" is generally in the basement, simply because no "western" country would buy it (like I said, overproduction everywhere), and the countries that would need it can't afford it (guns are more important).

On the other hand, we (as in, the "western" world) have to import a lot of agricultural goods because we want those goods but we cannot or cannot economically grow it ourselves, and it's either cheaper or a necessity altogether to import those goods.

Granted, we could survive without kiwis. But do we want to? People want to buy those fruits and they just don't grow everywhere.

there's a difference

[eean]

There isn't much for-profit piracy in the US. In China it is apparently widespread. Shops openly doing business in pirated goods, which is the foundation of the US WTO complaint.

I think its all kind of ironic given how there was a lot of opposition to China joining the WTO by protectionist in the US. It may end up that the WTO is our tool to open CHina to all our awesome movies and expensive copies of Vista. And I can't think of a better thing for Linux then if China stopped pirating Windows. So go kick some ass WTO! :)

I can partially fill in :

[aepervius]

Books for example where willfully copied completely from their European counter part publication, and reprinted without royalty in the US for a very long time.

Alternatively

[aepervius]

Alternatively, entertainment producer in the US, do produce for the "lowest common" denominator possible, and thus can sell in many country of various culture and still be accepted. In other word, they sell outside because there is "not much brainpower" really left in such entertainment. Mind you it does not seem to work for all country and culture.

Re:Alternatively

[Aaron England]

But if it was that easy, then every entertainment business around the world would be cashing in on the "American media model". I think the formula for media success is far more intriciate than that.

A sad commentary on our nation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sad that our biggest beef with China trade-wise is over the profits of the entertainment industry rather than the human rights and pollution issues of their industries that want to sell products here.

Re:A sad commentary on our nation...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

well those pollution and abusive human rights issues benefit us in large yummy amounts of profit! That is why we dont dare say anything about those things.

Frankly, The rich in America would enslave all middle class / poor Americans if they could get a way with it. Which is why we have an illegal immigration problem in this country.

We dont give a shit about people or each other really. Thats the hard fact. Its pretty fucking sad if you ask me.

I'm just smiling as i watch it all burn down.

Re:Condoned?

[SillyNickName4me]

Is it truly piracy when companies/people in China are basically emulating what the Chinese government teaches them? Heck, look at China's military, would they be anywhere close to where they are today without "piracy?" I think not.

If you would have said copying instead of piracy, your statement would have been a lot more to the point and actually somewhat insightfull.

Of course, it is exactly how the USA got to where it is now as well.

Maybe this is an entirely new idea for you, but virtually all progress of humanity is the result of copying eachother. Sure, there are truely new things invented or produced every now and then, and that is the real progress, but that could not happen if everyone was spending time reinventing the wheel over and over.

Re:Piracy is such a way of life in some Asian . .

[samuraiz]

Since censorship and withholding information are bad making these DVDs available has to be a good thing. YES! This is the precise point I came to this thread to make.

Let me tell you what is playing in Beijing cinemas right now: Flyboys, Sixteen Blocks, A Night at the Museum, Eragon, and probably a Hong Kong flick or two.

Not to pass judgment on any of these movies in particular. I enjoyed a couple of them, myself. But do you see the pattern? These are the most popcorn, inconsequential, and super-commercial of Hollywood's output. There isn't a challenging, thought-provoking moment among them. It was a national event when we got Casino Royale, "uncut!" (Those might have been projection glitches, but I have my doubts.)

I mention this because movies are only approved for legal DVD sale if they can pass the censorship to make it into theaters in the first place. The studios are full of shit when they claim that they're losing money, because there are no legal DVDs worth buying in the first place. The legal movies are pretty cheap, they have decent Chinese subtitles, and they're certainly easier to get than the pirated stock. People aren't buying for the same reason ticket revenues are down in the States: the movies suck.

Do you want to see the award-winning art movie that everybody on the internet is talking about? If you're in China, you have to buy it off the street or in a hidden back room. If a Chinese person wants to see a piece of provocative film art about their own country, they have to buy a pirated copy. Even the better popcorn fare is banned: we didn't get Dead Man's Chest because the yarr matey pirates are a bad moral example to the tender, innocent Chinese public.

I work in the Chinese film industry, making domestic commercial movies. We probably lose money to movie piracy (although it was virtually impossible to find an illicit copy of Curse of the Golden Flower- which shattered Chinese BO records). But part of the job description at the office is to stay on top of international trends. There are only two ways to do that: piracy in the office, or massive travel budgets to send the whole office to Hong Kong every couple of weeks- which we can't do either, because the Chinese citizens in the office aren't free to travel there unrestricted.

I know it's too much to ask for principled international leadership from my mother country, but if the United States government would pull their heads out of the MPAA's ass for one minute, I might hope that they would see that piracy isn't what's killing Hollywood's profits in China- the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television is. And they're keeping the domestic industry at a third-world level while they're at it.

How about some WTO threats about that?

(Also, while I'm dreaming, if they could apply some pressure to make the Chinese fish less lead than fish and the air more air than choking soot, that would be fantastic.

Why do I live here, again?)

No single cause

[nten]

The world wars weren't due to a single cause, we just remember the big ones from history class. The parent isn't funny, its disturbing due to its insight.

us senators!

[doktr thunder]

this reminds me of a story I heard from one of my friends involved in democratic-party politics. Some (although my friend WOULD NOT tell me his name) senator was in beijing on an official visit and my friend was in the LIMO with him as a guide for the "must see" places.

Long story short, the senator immediately asks to goto the best place for cheap movies and he takes him to various pirated music/dvd shops and the senator loads up on pirated shit, which, of course, won't be touched at customs. I imagine he went to dirty-karaoke afterwards too...

probably the same asshole who voted for dmca and gets paid-off by disney treats himself on our time. Hell he was probably there speaking out against copyright infringement like arnie.

I'm sure this illustrates some profound point about the digital age... anyway fucking HYPOCRITES!

Re:us senators!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe our homeboy was on a "fact-finding mission..."

Re:us senators!

[vic-traill]

Long story short, the senator immediately asks to goto the best place for cheap movies and he takes him to various pirated music/dvd shops and the senator loads up on pirated shit, which, of course, won't be touched at customs. I imagine he went to dirty-karaoke afterwards too...

I *gotta* ask, OT karma be damned ... what the hell is dirty-karaoke?

Horrific notions of what this might possibly mean are FUCKING HURTING ME, MAN!

Another chapter from

[geekoid]

George Bush's, "How to win friends and influence people."

Re:Piracy is such a way of life in some Asian . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I am looking forward to seeing Curse of the Golden Flower in the cinema on friday when it comes out, but none of my workmates are interested - they will probably pirate it from bittorrent (damn pirating westerners!) and/or think that the chinese "genre" has been "done to death" already what with 3 decent films already out (sheesh!). Frankly that is the sort of film which you should see in the cinema, and leave the thought-provoking arthouse stuff for the tiny TV screen.

"Slam" ? I doubt it.

[ishmalius]

If China did any slamming, I bet it was the most polite ever done, with many a "please" and "thank you", and lots of curtsying. Is this title maybe a reflection of the author's own people skills? ^^

Yo, VIP. Let's kick it.

[Anonymous Coward]

China and other countries produce and export lots of low quality counterfeit products, including drugs and mecanical parts that can endanger consumers health but the US Gov. is only mad about copies of overpriced products (usually made in China for dirt cheap BTW) to protect the profit of a few cartels.

Yeah, China manufactures some cheap, low quality stuff. It also makes some of the best-manufactured products in the world. (Where did you think iPods come from?)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is exactly what the free market is all about. If people want the cheap crappy $50 bicycle, they'll buy it. If they want the decent-quality bicycle made in China, they'll have to pay the $500 for it. If they are foolish enough to buy the equivalent-quality bicycle that was made in the USA, they'll pay $1000.

It's a competition. If China is kicking your butt in manufacturing, it's either because they are smarter than you, or they have more suitable conditions for making a useful product. Either way, they are the ones who ought to profit, and you should either wise up or get out of the business.

Piracy is different. When you buy "Ice Ice Baby" dirt cheap from some mega piracy mart in mainland China, it's not because they have better production methods than the legit retailers. It's not because they are adding anything useful to the world at large. It's because the only thing they have to do is to copy the hard work that someone else has recently done.

Think of all the electrons used in discussions about GPL violations. This is the same kind of thing. If the work is public domain, go ahead, copy it. Otherwise, respect the copyright and any voluntary licensing agreements that you wish to consent to.

It's pioneering chinese illegal copy engineering!

[holywarrior21c]

oh my goodness, how come this be a slashdot news? we all know that everything we make is being copied by chinese monkeies even before it has been marketed.

--

In china,dvds are copied illegally, In soviet china, everything is copied and legal issue is not an issue.

Where's this supposed "slam"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen the word "slam" used in reference to this story in three different articles, but I have yet to see anything of the sort. China criticized the US's decision to file a complaint, but that hardly qualifies as slamming them, does it?

I was expecting some "your momma" jokes or at least a heavy-handed "You can take your copyright laws and shove them..." sort of response. What a let-down.

Blame, China?

[jmvbxx]

I thought it was Canada was to blame the world's black market copied media!!!

Different views

[Quila]

Considering how long America refused to recognise the copyright of other countries

Copyright in the US has (had) a different purpose than that in Europe. The stated purpose is to "advance the arts and sciences" by granting a limited monopoly on the work. Even the Founders realized that ideas should be free, and that public domain is the default. You are given an exemption to that only to give you incentive to create more works.

Copyright in other places has a "you wrote it, you own it" mentality, which was directly at odds with US law and the Constitution. Adopting Berne was one of the most unconstitutional acts our government has ever committed. We should not honor foreign effectively unlimited copyrights just as we should not honor foreign censorship or religious oppression, as all are in violation of our most basic law.

Re:Different views

[Anonymous Coward]

So you shouldn't follow other countries laws, but they should follow yours, right? Did I miss something there?

In Related News

[rlp]

The US has pre-positioned the USS Jack Thompson, home of the 1049th Barrister Brigade ("The Terrible Torts") in the South China Sea.

Re:In Related News

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit. The infamous 1049th?! The Chinese might as well give up now. They know not what they face.

I see

[unity100]

then if all food producers have merged into a few cartels, and then put prices on basic foodstuffs ranging from $100 to $500 per item, like a single bread, then people should just "not buy them" and starve is that it ?

fantastic logic approach to the subject. so if any sector is monopolized to the extent that 3-4 big boys dictate prices, any price goes, and noone should go pirating.

before you even go that way, music/entertainment is also a basical necessity of life.

Re:I see

[JesseMcDonald]

[T]hen if all food producers have merged into a few cartels, and then put prices on basic foodstuffs ranging from $100 to $500 per item, like a single [loaf of?] bread, then people should just "not buy them" and starve is that it?

No, they should buy or grow their own materials and make their own bread, and thus compete with the cartel. The corresponding action in digital media would be to make their own copies on their own physical media (i.e. "pirate"). Of course if the cartel receives tax subsidies or favorable legislation (such as copyright or patent laws) then you're not really talking about a simple cartel, but rather a pair of criminal organizations (the cartel and the government) working together for their own benefits at everyone else's expense. In that case your only real option is to attempt to eliminate them just as you would any other criminal organizations.

The problem, of course, is finding a way to eliminate what essentially amount to a protection racket without bring in an even bigger racket to replace them; so far as I know this problem has yet to be solved.

Re:I see

[unity100]

No, they should buy or grow their own materials and make their own bread, and thus compete with the cartel. The corresponding action in digital media would be to make their own copies on their own physical media (i.e. "pirate").

yea, definitely. and whilst this process is taking its duration to ripen up, poor people should die from diseases caused by weak bodies due to hunger. not to forget that a lot of youngsters' development will be hampered with lack of food in their growing period.

Of course if the cartel receives tax subsidies or favorable legislation (such as copyright or patent laws) then you're not really talking about a simple cartel, but rather a pair of criminal organizations (the cartel and the government) working together for their own benefits at everyone else's expense. In that case your only real option is to attempt to eliminate them just as you would any other criminal organizations.

please, then, by all means be my guest and "eliminate" the music cartels from creative arena. there is a reason people is pirating. if they would be eliminate"able", it would have been done a while ago.

The problem, of course, is finding a way to eliminate what essentially amount to a protection racket without bring in an even bigger racket to replace them; so far as I know this problem has yet to be solved

the problem is being or not being able to eliminate the "protection racket". and the positive part of the former sentence is nonexistent.

Re:I see

[JesseMcDonald]

yea, definitely. and whilst this process is taking its duration to ripen up, poor people should die from diseases caused by weak bodies due to hunger. not to forget that a lot of youngsters' development will be hampered with lack of food in their growing period.

All of which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not theft is justified. The alternative to growing your own food is stealing that food from others. Rights are by their very nature mutual; if you can justify stealing from others then they can just as easily justify stealing from you. By refusing to recognize property rights you condemn yourself to perpetual poverty, since no one will recognize the property rights of a known thief. (Note, too, that not so long ago stealing food could easily get you a death sentence; it makes sense when you consider that by doing so you may be condemning someone else to die in your stead.)

I'd respond to the rest if I could tell what point(s) you were trying to make.

Re:I see

[smack.addict]

then if all food producers have merged into a few cartels, and then put prices on basic foodstuffs ranging from $100 to $500 per item, like a single bread, then people should just "not buy them" and starve is that it ? You cannot be so rationally challenged, can you? Are you literally comparing a luxury item like music to a necessity like food? As long as there is not a monopoly and the good in question is not a necessity, there will always be price pressures. You have the option not to by that latest Brittany Spears CD; you don't have the option of not eating.

Re:I see

[unity100]

All of which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not theft is justified. The alternative to growing your own food is stealing that food from others. Rights are by their very nature mutual; if you can justify stealing from others then they can just as easily justify stealing from you. By refusing to recognize property rights you condemn yourself to perpetual poverty, since no one will recognize the property rights of a known thief. (Note, too, that not so long ago stealing food could easily get you a death sentence; it makes sense when you consider that by doing so you may be condemning someone else to die in your stead.)

actually you are now

• exactly

on the point i am trying to make. ill draw the picture with a perfect example :

in pre 1789 france, it was aristocrats' right by laws to preside over the populace, to be privileged, and populace had to live on their land and pay them their 'due', which amounted to almost anything you produce as a resident, just a token amount was left to you so that you wouldnt die or move away.

also, in the years leaving up to the revolution, people were stealing bread to cope up with enflation, and government at last set up potato fields that were guarded by sentries, but at night unguarded, so that populace would come and steal and so continue their lives.

lets come to the point :

definitions of "right" and "property" are not absolute. they change over time.

for example now, the majority of internet backbone are owned by private companies. they, together make up the internet. now, on grounds of "ownership", what would happen if a cartel of these had acquired the right to twist their "property" in such a way that it hampered the internet as a whole ? as you remember they tried to do that, but closely was averted. still, it is a grey area as in that they do not have full control of their property ?

what would we do then, if they had had got their way ? trash 20 years of innovation and

• priceless

time, that is some asset that can not be recovered, and start laying fibers again ? in the starting stages of 21st century even ?

music is the same. as in 1789, there are laws. there are "rights", as were defined in 1789. but the overall effect of these laws and "rights" combined together in their current interpretation is hampering NOT consumers, but HUMANITY. remember that whatever we produce in terms of art affects our culture for centuries to come, or does NOT affect, if they cant find an outlet to reach the populace.

this is a matter that cant be evaluated like one evaluates local suburban home ownership rights. a suburban home owner cant affect the entire civilization, but a music cartel can.

people are just doing what they do in the wake of a minority elite oppressing them through either military force, or careful twisting of laws - they are going the route of civil disobedience. lucky that this matter is not something that requires you chain yourself somewhere, or get outside to march - you just disobey at home, and everyone is happy.

Re:I see

[unity100]

you yourself probably so rationally challenged that you are not able to understand the fact that human beings, being beings of higher evolutionary stages, need MORE than foodstuff to be able to survive.

music is a major ingredient in psychological, and as a result mental, and in the ultimate end physical health of any given human being.

as an example, if there was not enough music around, or they were not able to get sufficient dosage of whatever poison in music they needed, lots of programmers would be DEAD, instead of just bald, by the age of 40, due to stress/pressure related illnesses.

Re:"Slam" ? I doubt it.

[hey!]

You know, just because people live in the same quarter hemisphere of the globe doesn't mean their culture is identical.

It's not polite to be rude in any culture -- by definition. But what is considered rude varies quite a bit. Respect for authority and devotion to duty are important cultural values in China and Japan, which is not surprising given their long cultural contact. But Chinese attitudes towards open disagreement between equals is more like the American one than the Japanese.

It's remarkable when a Japanese politician writes a book entitled "The Japan That Can Say No" in which he essentially advocates that Japan openly take an independent view of its own interests. A similar book written some years later by Chinese authors which was not remarkable at all, despite having a much more confrontational stance which essentially painted western values as a corrupting influence.

There's a motif in Chinese painting which could only arise in a Chinese context: a man fishing while wearing a ceremonial court hat. The implication is that he a senior official who has chosen exile rather moral compromise. If you think about what this means, you can see it is not a story you're likely to see memorialized in Japanese or American art. Clearly here is a man, who although part of the system, fought against it. Also here is a man who has accepted defeat rather than compromise. The course of action that doesn't enter into consideration is something that would obvious to any American: tear down the system, or at least get rid of the people at the top who favor the corrupt over the virtuous.

Colombian pricing

[jmvbxx]

Illegal movies and music cds are everywhere here!

You can buy a movie on any corner - even if its just released in theaters for just under $2 USD and music cds for less!!!

Where's your logic?

[manifoldronin]

Exactly, this is another case of classic US unilateralism. The US government use the UN, WTO and other international groups to get their own way with the rest of the world but then ignore those same groups when the rest of the world has its own issues.

How does this become a case of US unilateralism, "this" being the US filing a complaint with an international organization against another country which is also a member of the same organization, through the protocols agreed to by all members of the organization?

I always remember when some US official was asked why the US didn't recognise the International court of Justice, he replied "because this would allow other nations to bring trials against OUR leaders". The US just doesn't get the idea of "international cooperation", you can't just use collaboration to get your own way without compromise. Perhaps it would help if the US realised that it isn't always right.

Would you mind citing the reference on which US official said that? The US' concern with the ICJ is that it would allow other nations to bring trials against any US citizen in a legal procedure that's not subjected to the judicial review under the US constitution. The US government is just following the mandate to protect its citizens. Not agreeing to submit its citizen to the disposal of an ad-hoc international tribunal is what a government is supposed to do.

Region coding

[metamatic]

On a similar note, region coding has been ruled illegal in many countries, as an unfair restraint to free trade. WTO rules say that's not permitted. Yet US DVD players still enforce it, and Blu-ray enforces it too.

How about China taking the US to court for not allowing region-free Blu-ray and DVD players to be sold here freely?

Piracy in China

[Anonymous Coward]

From my perspective here in Beijing, China is a pretty thoroughly policed country. There are lots of cops, and citizens are monitored closely by the police in many aspects of their lives.

On the other hand, the three DVD stores in my neighborhood, as well as most of the DVD stores I've been to here, sell only pirated material, for between 9 and 16 yuan (1-2 USD) per disc. The market is flooded with DVDs, for about the cost of dinner for one person in a neighborhood restaurant. This is in the capital- in the countryside, DVDs are undoubtedly cheaper.

Obviously, it undercuts the domestic market for films. On the other hand, only about 100 films are released to mainland theaters every year, and ticket prices are around 50 yuan per person.

Frankly, I think the Chinese do have an obligation to crack down on piracy. On the other hand, American and other foreign film companies have obviously not been able to enter the market legally, while reaping what they consider to be a reasonable profit. Therefore, let sleeping dogs lie, why don't they? The movie companies won't sell anything unless they drop their prices, and they won't or can't. At least now, they've built demand for foreign entertainment in China. Oh, wait....

Re:Piracy in China

[808140]

I lived in Beijing for four years, until last September, and still return there frequently (ie, I was there two weeks ago). If you're paying 9 to 16 yuan for pirated DVDs, you're being seriously ripped off. Just so you know.

Furthermore, despite what people always say, there are very few police relative to the population in China, even in Beijing (which has a larger police presence than most cities). In the old days, becoming a policeman was a stable job that gave you power, respect, and an enviable income. Nowadays, this is no longer the case. Everyone wants to make money, and the private sector is the way to get that. It's also the way to get influence -- if you have money, you make connections, and if you have connections, you can get away with most anything.

So it shouldn't surprise anyone that not that many young people are finding a career in law enforcement attractive anymore. Beijing cops are tough mothers -- I've seen them smack people for giving them lip -- but the basic truth is that there simply aren't enough of them to matter. Guan bu zhao, as the Chinese say.

There are 13 million people in Beijing municipality -- think about that. That's nearly the population of the entire continent of Australia.

Priorities

[DCheesi]

US response to China's widespread human rights violations, sweatshop labor conditions, and suppression of dissent: *chirp* *chirp*

US response to China's half-hearted enforcement of US Big Media copyrights: OMG! WTF?!! We must complain and protest most vigorously!!!111oneone!

Re:Piracy is such a way of life in some Asian . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I take you have never been to NYC.

The US actually filed two complaints

[shadowspar]

One thing that was glossed over quite a bit in the article from the Beeb is that the US is actually launching two WTO complaints about China. The CBC article says

On Monday, the U.S. government said it would file two WTO cases contending that Beijing's lax enforcement of trademark and copyright rules violates WTO rules and that China is unfairly blocking sales of U.S. movies, music and books.

It figures -- first they complain that the Chinese aren't selling enough US movies, music, and books. Then when they find a way to start selling them by the truckload, the US complains about that too. =)

Sentence fragment

[etherlad]

PEDANTIC MODE ON

The other contends that illegal barriers to hamper sales of US films, music and books.

I was expecting another part to this sentence. Minor restructuring to demonstrate:

The other contends that illegal barriers (to hamper sales of US films, music and books)...

What do the illegal barriers do?

Unless the "to" is superfluous, in which case:

The other contends that illegal barriers hamper sales of US films, music and books.

Re:Piracy is such a way of life in some Asian . .

[natpoor]

You've never been to Canal St. or Chinatown in NYC, have you? I hadn't until recently, but remember DVDs for Borat and 007 before the official ones were out. Other cities, I don't know. But, I don't know if I'd say it barely happens. I have some Eastern European friends, they had a friend who sold bootleg CDs for a while in Europe. Nothing against Eastern Europeans, I'm just sticking to the facts I know, and it's just a small part of the big picture. In the US we had a good market for booleg concert CDs, but then the authorities cracked down (a new law? I don't recall) in the early/mid-1990s. I remember the day I went into my favorite Harvard Square (Cambridge, MA) bootleg CD store and all the bootleg CDs were gone. They had been there for years! I asked about it, and was told "we never had those." Crazy. Later I learned about the enforcement. In Thailand we're tourists, like at the Chang Mai night market, so the pirate CD sellers target areas we go to. In our home countries, we're not tourists. Tourists in NYC go to Canal St. and Chinatown. Maybe it's here and we don't see it. Getting official statistics is probably impossible.

How is this a "Slam"

[Anonymous Coward]

I still looking for any comments where china "slams" the U.S. on this news. China is to Piracy what Colombia is to cocaine. It's a fact. They need to respect intellectual property laws. I don't like the RIAA anymore than anyone else here on slashdot, but it's not just music and movies. As a business owner, if I create a product and it's successful, I have to compete against a criminal regime (Chinese government) cloning my product and selling it. Nevermind the fact that I spent huge amounts of money to develop it and market it to make it successful. They are allowed to shortcut this process and basically steal from me. Oh yea, let not forget those port scans that we get all day long. Where do they come from ? China and North Korea. What do you think they are looking for ? Some are spambots, ect, but a lot are Chinese regime sponsored hacking attempts looking for anything of value, especially intellectual property. Screw them. Since when did the Chinese invent anything ? They can't. They are intellectually and genetically inferior.

Re:How is this a "Slam"

[Dilaudid]

The slam was from the dollar decreasing by 1% on the day - all foreign imports just went up by 1%, the value of your business just fell by 1%. Bush can continue to demand things that China cannot supply if he chooses to - as he does ASEAN will continue to gain importance, and Europe can continue to make bilateral trade agreements without US involvement.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the US owes about $3 trn to China - the dollar will fall a lot further if the Chinese start asking for it back.

Your opinion on government sponsored hacking is a dumb joke. I'll reprint it here for others to laugh at your paranoia, coward:

Oh yea, let not forget those port scans that we get all day long. Where do they come from ? China and North Korea. What do you think they are looking for ? Some are spambots, ect, but a lot are Chinese regime sponsored hacking attempts looking for anything of value, especially intellectual property. Screw them.

Re:How is this a "Slam"

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the debt have anything to do with intellectual property law ? So, by your logic, if I owe you 3000.00, it's OK to steal from me until I pay it back ? Your logic is flawed. But you are probably chinese. So, this is to be expected. To think that I should be intimidated by a 1% move on the dollar.... or a 1% decrease in my business... that's a joke. It shows your ignorance of the Interbank Currency Markets . Those moves happen all the time, every day, up and down. So, to say that this news had a 1% impact on the currency markets is truely a joke. Read George Soros's book.. from around 1993 I believe.. to get a basic education in the markets. Does the word "funnymentals" mean anything to you ? As for government sponsored hacking, that is a fact, not paranoia. You can call me a coward if you want, but you sir are a coward if you are defending the theft of intellectual property by the chinese and justifying it by the fact that we owe them money. As for the U.S. being intimidated by the economic forces of china you mention... please ... is that all you got ?

hypocritical america

[Anonymous Coward]

the americans have long ignored the WTO on online gambling to protect the american gambling industry interests. i hope that China won't be bullied by the world's biggest blackmailer and bully.

China doesn't care... yet

[ubercam]

The moment China will start caring is the moment copyrighted materials from THEIR country are being counterfeited/p2p'd EN MASSE, WORLDWIDE just like the American MAFIAA is currently experiencing in China. I'm sure copyright infringement/filesharing is done on a relatively minor scale, certainly not to the extent of Hollywood materials.
 
Once the tables turn, we'll start to see the Chinese MAFIAA (if one even exists??) pushing their national gov't to complain to the WTO for sanctions against other countries, but never before then.

Re:China doesn't care... yet

[Anonymous Coward]

China is a huge market, they don't need to worry about exporting their movies and music to the US (300m) and Europe (360m), when their own market is double the combined total.

Furthermore, people in the west really aren't interested in China's culture or offerings. We use them to make cheap goods, and when another country undercuts them, we'll drop China and move production to the cheaper place.

All the Chinese have to do

[iminplaya]

Is to start a nuclear program, and the U.S. will back down...oh, wait.

Just like the RIAA!

[natpoor]

From TFA:
"Many of the goods find their way into Europe and are knowingly bought as fakes by shoppers at markets and from street vendors. Firms claim that the poor quality copies dent their brand and divert profits and potenital clients."

If the goods are knowingly bought as fakes, how does that dent the brand? It's a fake, and the buyer knows that. It certainly doesn't divert profits, this is the same argument the RIAA (and probably the MPAA) makes, but it is not at all true. Buyers of pirated, cheap goods have the option of buying the more expensive, legit version. However the buyer refuses to do so because the price is too high for that buyer. Thus no money is diverted away from the real copyright owner. Basic economics. Lots of other things can be said about copyright, its cultural background, the specifics of the laws and their history, or even enforcement issues and might makes right.

China could divert resources to open source

[quixote9]

Bug us about piracy, they could say, and we'll throw the government's weight behind Linux and OSS. Blackmail, of a sort, but I wonder how long it would take for Microsoft's minions to swarm all over Washington DC, insisting everyone leave China alone?

Piracy just another Distracter Issue

[FascismIsNear]

Sure, it's a problem. But, the BullSh administration thinks this is responsible for the $43 billion trade deficit! I don't think so. Lets go back to basics - tech manufacturing has left the USA. Were only a few years away from having to out source our military hardware production to China and the software for it to India. How's *that* for National Security. Piracy is just a distracter issue. If we're not making tech products and innovations here in the USA then our only remaining key industry becomes politics. Keep your eye the ball.

A Chinese view

[humaniverse]

I'm Chinese. Guess what, most Chinese wouldn't buy legal foreign stuffs since most of them are overpriced or not worth it at all. They buy it simply because they treat it as trash and worth trash price only. If you force them to use M$ Windows, they will turn to Linux for sure (they are doing that in some Gov agencies). All Hollywood craps worth 50cents in their view. If you ask more than that, they wouldn't buy it at all. You can't count loss base on original price from US times pirate sale volume. No way. They can live without that. They need it only when, well, I have one hour before some friends come, one option is to get some really cheap US craps. And fast forward it.

Can't Fight Common Sense

[Kev_Stewart]

I've spent a fair bit of time in China and the concept of intellectual property is completely alien to most of the common folk. The street stall price in Shanghai or Guangzhou etc is probably the most they'd pay anyway.

The Chinese are very pragmatic people who recognise a rip off a mile away. If you tried selling a DVD in China for $20, I'd wager that out of 1.3 billion potential customers, you'd sell maybe two copies... ...outside the nuthouse.

In the West, ordinary people are just starting to get a handle the TRUE market value of music and movies - thanks to the internet. Turns out that it's value is nowhere NEAR the price we're being charged for it - hence all the piracy.

Oh and, all the t-shirts I've ever bought in China over the past five years are still as good as new! They only ship the crap stuff to us - there's no market for sub-standard clothing in China ;-)

Beijing prices

[Necron69]

I was in Beijing for 10 days last month, and there were vendors on almost every street corner selling pirate DVDs for about 7 yuan or slightly less than $1.

I actually discussed the availability of these DVDs with my Chinese coworkers. All of them have seen the latest Hollywood movies, often before the official DVD release. They find it inconceivable that the Chinese government could crack down on this trade, even if it wanted to.

Incidentally, what the Chinese can't find on the street, they can easily download online. :)

- Necron69

Wait a minute!

[Gazzonyx]

Huh, What?! Humility on Slashdot?! Mine eyes deceive me and I recoil in horror as I start to question everything I've ever known! I salute you!

Re:Wait a minute!

[j-beda]

Maybe it wasn't humility - maybe it was all a big typo? That would be more consistent with /. norms.

Re:Wait a minute!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

My cat took over the keyboard. I meant to ignore everything you wrote and go off on a tangent, but now it's too late.

Re:Wait a minute!

[Gazzonyx]

Gazzonyx sighs a slow "Ahhh...", as j-beda offers a logical escape from questioning everything, his world once again whole. "A typo...of course; all is well. This is slashdot, after all, humility would be going against the grain when someone actually allowed it to be known that they don't know everything. A typo. Yes, it was all just a typo." With this Gazzonyx puts his hands to his keyboard to start expressing strong opinions about things he doesn't know the first thing about, and can't be bothered to look up.

Good call, j-beda. I salute your sarcasm and wit, as well!

MOD PARENT UP

[TerranFury]

...because the post is interesting and insightful, and appears to be from someone qualified to say something which is (1) meaningful and (2) different from what everyone else is saying.

It's funny. I only have mod points when I don't want them.

Thus ends my meta-post of the day.

US should learn from the China

[Anonymous Coward]

A legit dvd costs about 13aussie, in the non rip off chinese stores.
Its fairly easy to spot fairly legit dvd, as they come with all the crazy subtitles
alot of them have been censored as well. ...
Having been caught in a few raids whilst living in china, I can say they are truely a joke.
Everyone just keeps shopping until the officer is paid off, or just leaves. Its fairly funny actually to see how they hide some of the fake dvds stores are in hidden walls, or front stores that can magically change to being legit in less than 30seconds. Just ask foreign uni students where the best stores are.

Some of the fakes at shanghai/beijing are bad quality, and all foreigners get ripped off.
What I pay at the (old) shanghai markets are
13-20renminbi for glasses
8renminbi for a dvd ...
The market picks the price for fakes, hence you pay for what you get. (Just bring back anything you feel you've got ripped off for! Most stores will replace it x2 etc...)

I like to pay what I feel a product is worth - not what the people who stand to make the most money choose. There's nothing like that in western countries.

I would just like someone from China to say ....

[hasrat]

No!

Re:"Slam" ? I doubt it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much for your concerns of copyright, you give us many opportunities for dissapointment.

I won't miss Asia at all.

[sethstorm]

. What exactly are we supposed to do? Declare war on China if they don't legislate improved working conditions?
Trade war, where the US drops Asia in favor of close (deglobalized)EU - US ties for products. When they try to circumvent by using front groups in this region, apply same to the front groups, publicly shaming them as well. No missiles needed, but there are ways to outdo that region of the world that doesn't seem to know the words "human rights", or "ethics".

Upsides:
Domestic students have open season at top universities with little trouble of getting in where desired.
Manufacturing/textile regions have a chance to revitalize heavily
Offshoring is marginalized to a point where there is no disparity to facilitate such activity.
Businesses would be encouraged to be humane given what has happened when doing the contrary.
If degree reciprocity is allowed to save on space, to expand slots, and to further favor the domestic students of a certain region, then remaining "International" students can remain in their home country going to a university of comparable difficulty compared to one of a different country.

If you want full war, drop out of Iraq and offer countries that are hostile to Asia a chance to express it. However, trade war doesn't leave the unsightly fallout or afterglow but yields similar results.

When workers are allowed an environment that does not attack them, but respects them for each and every contribution - then you can see quality go up without exorbitant expense tagging closely behind. Add unnecessary stress of job insecurity and that affects the products in the line.

The WTO exists precisely for the purpose of arbitrating disputes of this sort. The US is following protocol for a legitimate concern.
That has not worked for the larger part for multiple members - maybe it is time to consider taking action that ignores the WTO for the larger part if it will help.

But that demonstration

[Anonymous Coward]

was an idiotic argument too.

I'm at a loss as to how you come out ahead here.

Re:Piracy is such a way of life in some Asian . .

[Quikah]

Curse of the Golden Flower is really not that good. Pretty typical/boring plot. It LOOKS beautiful though. Nice costuming also. :P

5 dollar income, hard work

[Anonymous Coward]

me so horny, me love you long time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Metal_Jacket , atleast they got that one right :)

m10

US IGNORES WTO

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the posts referencing how the US ignores WTO rulings is surely the correct reasoning here, right, sure. With all the pirating of Chinese imports happening here its so unjust (cynicism).

      And its so bad for countries wanting to trade with the US when US consumers send trillions of dollars overseas since every fuckling thing is made in fucking China or (insert various countries where US jobs end up here) anyway and US companies have it so easy getting access to overseas markets as evidenced by our trade imbalance.

      Sure, its the US's fault once again like its our fault for Terrorism, Global Warming etc etc etc etc etc

patents of mass destruction

[bl8n8r]

Bet they get invaded.

it looks like a business activity

[totalctrl]

copyright issue looks like a business activity, wonder why suing a whole country? does that mean china can also sue the US back for not having good enough DRM techniques on the content?

U.S. record of compliance with W.T.O. decisions...

[vic-traill]

However, in a discussion of enforcement of IP in China ...

No,this is actually a discussion - if you read TFA - about a complaint filed by the U.S. with the W.T.O. about enforcement (or lack thereof) of I.P. in China (as well as blocking of business opportunities for foreign companies).

References to the U.S. record WRT observance/compliance with previous W.T.O. decisions is thus relevant, methinks. Sauce for the goose, and all that ... a la carte observance of the rule of law is a problem, and definitely on-topic.

They may have a legitimate gripe with China, but..

[Lunarsight]

.. it's admittedly enjoyable to see the US copyright interests encountering a force that doesn't give in to their demands easily. Considering how quick they are to bully everything smaller than them, it's good to see them outgunned by a more powerful entity for a change. I really have little sympathy for them at this point, whether their criticisms are valid or not.

Reasonable pricing vs 'piracy'

[jandersen]

The four-letter-mafias (riaa/mpaa et al) keep howling about 'pirates' and some people even believe in the nonsense the spew out. But isn't it true that piracy is only piracy because they want to be able to have a monopoly? They will simply have to get back to reality and learn to produce their wares cost effectively.

In most cases the actual artists only earn peanuts; the Hollywood stars and bands that earn tens of millions are rare, at least if you compare to the number of artist out there. For each superstar there is 100000 good artists who earn next to nothing - I have heard about many musicians that made a CD, sold quite well, got known, but never saw a penny, so I don't think the socalled pirates take anything aways from the artists.

The politicians won

[Opportunist]

Every government, since the dawn of time, wanted to have total control over its subjects. Either to keep them from revolting or at least to make them behave the way intended, if only to pay taxes, while at the same time being subject to no jurisdiction.

I mean, it could be me, but isn't it kinda interesting that there are cams popping up everywhere but it's still strictly forbidden to peek into meetings between politicians and lobbyists? I wonder who's the souvereign in what we tend to call democracy.

Coined new term...

[tek_heretik]

Chockoff = an inferior/counterfeited product made by the Chinese. =D On a serious note, it seems like the Chinese are doing whatever the hell they want. I could care less that Bill G. and others like him are losing a couple of bucks, I shudder to think of the ecological crimes they commit on a daily basis in the name of a fast buck. There are areas of China where it is not safe to drink the water because of chemical contamination. It would appear the Americans have had enough of their jobs going there and then insult to injury, their intellectual property stolen too. Oh well, you make deals with the devil, you pay a hefty price. Thank companies like Wal*Mart for the extreme trade imbalance and inferior products (even when they are legal, they are inferior most of the time). I don't shop at Wal*Mart for those reasons and try to buy the least amount of Chinese made products as I can. I have noticed a definite quality difference between motherboards made in China and elsewhere, inferior components on the Chinese made boards to say the least. :-/