Antigua May Be Allowed To Violate US Copyrights

Skleed refers us to the NYTimes for an article on the high-stakes case the US is losing before the World Trade Organization. So far the US has lost an initial hearing and two appeals on its policies regarding Antiguan offshore gambling sites. Now the lawyer pressing the case has asked for a rarely invoked, but codified, recourse under WTO rules: letting Antiguans copy and distribute American music, movies, and software. The game may be to get Hollywood and Microsoft, et al., to pressure Washington to cut a deal. But their influence may not be sufficient to move lawmakers on the question of online gambling. From the article: "But not complying with the decision presents big problems of its own for Washington. That's because Mr. Mendel, who is claiming $3.4 billion in damages on behalf of Antigua, has asked the trade organization to grant a rare form of compensation if the American government refuses to accept the ruling: permission for Antiguans to violate intellectual property laws by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among others."

Comments

Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[mre5565]

I love it.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[arivanov]

Nope it is not.

It will be the same as with the International War Crime court. When USA does not like an international law in their favour they go around and get themselves exempted from it on a per-country basis. If this will really happen, they will simply make sure that there is no market for AllOfMP3 Mark 2 or any other similar outfit. They will pressure all countries with large potential customer markets not to trade with Antigua.

This will not give Antigua a chance to recoup its losses or pressure the USA into fixing the relevant part of the Sharia law passed by the council of elders on Capitol Hill.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[terrymr]

Wouldn't that be just digging the hole deeper - Antigua is a WTO member and as such the other nations would be violating their treaty obligations if they caved to such pressure.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[Anonymous Coward]

How will they stop someone selling MP3s or AVIs? It will be quite hard for them to get VISA/MC/Amex to stop accepting transactions when there is nothing illegal about them.

I for one dont give a crap about US pressure and I'll be giving Antigua as much business as I can.

I bet a lot of other consumers will feel the same way after the US media industry has acted.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[timster]

This is not remotely similar to the issue with the International Criminal Court. The ICC is an organization that the United States has simply declined to join. That's not some kind of "exemption".

Not that the US hasn't sought or received such exemptions in the context of other international organizations, but the US has no legal obligation of any kind to participate in the ICC. Some people feel that the US should feel a moral obligation, but this is unlikely as long as nations like China and Russia continue to also abstain from membership.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[Anonymous Coward]

"I bet a lot of other consumers..."

Better not be placing that bet online!

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[stinerman]

That and the market for VPN tunnels to Antigua IP addresses.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[Stanislav_J]

Treaty? We don' need no steenkin' treaties!

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[plague3106]

So that would mean that countries would not allow citizens to travel to the island, or gamble online using one of their sites?

It doesn't sound like countries would do either of those things, and I doubt anyone would stop selling to Antigua, especially if the US stops.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[jedidiah]

No, this is more like the Opium Wars. Except this time the US is playing the part of China.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[ultranova]

Wouldn't that be just digging the hole deeper - Antigua is a WTO member and as such the other nations would be violating their treaty obligations if they caved to such pressure.

Treaties only have meaning if their signatories either have sufficient personal honor to not violate them or are made to pay from any such violations by an external party. Since countries have no personal honor, on the account of not being persons or comparable entities, and since the US - the benefactory of the treaty violation in this case - is the strongest country on Earth, the treaty isn't worth the paper it is written on, since at least a clean piece of paper can be used to write something menaingful.

The US can violate any and all treaty with impunity for the simple reason that there is no one on this planet capable of punishing it for such violations. It's that simple. That's why the various governments making deals with the US are, frankly, idiots; they don't get anything, but almost certainly have to give up something.

Please not that this is by no means a problem with the US alone; international treaties in general depend on the goodwill and good faith of their participants, and both have historically been in very short supply.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[alba7]

In other words: Why do these guys hate us so much?

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[digitalchinky]

I'm guessing you are young. Your logic is interesting, do you really think the rest of the world fears the US because a couple of you over there incorrectly paint the entire country as a single entity unique in the belief that the infantile rubbish you are parroting off is absolute truth. Fortunately the rest of the world is touch smarter and a little more rational than that.

Do some basic economics, you'll find that the US is propped up on the backs of a good many nations. It would only take one or two of the bigger ones to start grumbling and your house of cards could very easily come tumbling down. Remove China from the big picture and what do you have? Slash oil production and where are you? Perhaps a lot of jobs would return to the US, but your economy will have the backside ripped out of it as a result - that fine military of which you speak will not have such a rosy outlook.

Understand the bigger picture, it has nothing to do with military power.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[f1055man]

Treaties only codify the existing power dynamics, e.g. the UN security council. Doesn't mean they're useless. It's often helpful to have a document that spells out how badly you're screwed.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fortunately the rest of the world is touch smarter and a little more rational than that."

Have you looked around the globe lately? I've personally come to realize that EVERYONES ARE RETARDEDED.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Sovereignity in excess, overloaded, overheating, ...

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[VGPowerlord]

Remove China from the big picture and what do you have?

Well, it'd kill Walmart. Of course, some people, me included, would consider that a good thing.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[ultranova]

I'm guessing you are young.

I'm guessing you have no valid arguments since you're resorting to ad hominem in the very first sentence of your reply.

Your logic is interesting, do you really think the rest of the world fears the US because a couple of you over there incorrectly paint the entire country as a single entity unique in the belief that the infantile rubbish you are parroting off is absolute truth.

A fine pointless rant, that, but questions should be ended with a question mark (?) instead of period (.). But at least you stayed consistent, in that you made no logical arguments and resorted to another ad hominem attack; and again you make a reference to age with the reference to "infantile rubbish". Do you have some issues with youth ?

Do some basic economics, you'll find that the US is propped up on the backs of a good many nations. It would only take one or two of the bigger ones to start grumbling and your house of cards could very easily come tumbling down.

You seem to think that I live in the USA. I don't; I am a citizen and resident of Finland, which is located in northern Europe.

To address your argument, it is true that other countries could harm US economy. However, doing so would cause more harm to the countries in question, at least in the short term, so it is very unlikely that they will do so, especially just to help another country.

Remove China from the big picture and what do you have?

Is China going to interfere at the behalf of any third party, when doing so risks their own economy ?

Slash oil production and where are you?

At war, judging by current events. Besides, the US is one of the biggest oil producers itself.

Understand the bigger picture, it has nothing to do with military power.

Then why did you bring up military power ? I said nothing about it.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[rtb61]

The real issue is whether gambling can actually be considered to be trade. What controls are in place to ensure the gambling activities are in any way fair, so should it be illegal to gamble beyond civil jurisdiction, most likely, should Antigua and Barbuda win and be able to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, to a population of 70,000, seriously who would give a fuck, nobody will be able to import that product from them, and at 70,000 that ain't even the population of a regional town.

In turn the US or any other country who gets effected by B$ online gambling cut quite indifferently cut 70,000 people out of trade in either direction with out even noticing.

Whilst the current US administration has pretty well demonstrated it ignorance, greed and corruption, that does not by any stretch of the imagination make every US law wrong, or the country as a whole guilty or the American people deserving of getting ripped off by overseas Internet gambling houses.

So the stakes are really high for the survivability of the WTO and whether that organisation should continue to exist, and whether it should attempt to force it's corporate greed driven will upon any countries internal laws.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[GPL Apostate]

In another set of 'other words':

Why do the people who live in 'these guys' countries want to get outta said countries and come live in the U.S.?

It's a valid point to ponder.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[GPL Apostate]

I'm guessing you have no valid arguments since you're resorting to ad hominem in the very first sentence of your reply.

Calling the kettle black, eh? It's amusing that you then dig in after the above ludicrous comment and point-by-point criticize the arguements he made.

Yes, this IS ad hominem. You need to work on your split personality where you say one thing in the first sentence of a comment and then contradict it with several drawn out paragraphs following.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[aproposofwhat]

nobody will be able to import that product from them

There's the flaw, right there! If nobody can import from them, what do they have to gain?

Of course, since there's all that spare bandwidth not being used for internet gambling by US citizens, downloads of US software, music and film might just fill the gap - it's not as if "intellectual property" has to have a physical manifestation, after all.

The WTO will survive, of course - it does far too much for the corporations that run the politicians for any other outcome to be possible.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[plague3106]

The real issue is whether gambling can actually be considered to be trade. What controls are in place to ensure the gambling activities are in any way fair, so should it be illegal to gamble beyond civil jurisdiction, most likely, should Antigua and Barbuda win and be able to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, to a population of 70,000, seriously who would give a fuck, nobody will be able to import that product from them, and at 70,000 that ain't even the population of a regional town.

I'm having trouble with your run-on sentence, so I hope I got your meaning. Anyway, its pretty clear that services are considered in trade, as "entertainment services" are explicitly mentioned. The fact that you could get ripped off is irrelevent; people could travel there and gamble and it would be perfectly legal, so why not on the internet? If people keep losing at these sites, they'll stop going. That's true of all gambling establishments.

You assume no one would be able to import the IP that they are violating; I don't see anything that forbids it, and indeed it would be a useless rule from the WTO if it would only be legal to violate within thier borders. I makes much more sense that they'd be able to export the violated IP given that the WTO is trying to even the field between small and large.

In turn the US or any other country who gets effected by B$ online gambling cut quite indifferently cut 70,000 people out of trade in either direction with out even noticing.

Exactly why I think they'd be able to export the violated IP; otherwise why would a nation join the WTO?

Whilst the current US administration has pretty well demonstrated it ignorance, greed and corruption, that does not by any stretch of the imagination make every US law wrong, or the country as a whole guilty or the American people deserving of getting ripped off by overseas Internet gambling houses.

People throw away money on all sorts of stupid things. The fashion industry is built around it. We need new waredrobes every year because some twit on TLC says some styles are "out?" The fact is that the government, sort of keeping gambling here "honest" should stay out of it.

So the stakes are really high for the survivability of the WTO and whether that organisation should continue to exist, and whether it should attempt to force it's corporate greed driven will upon any countries internal laws.

If you read the article, you'd see the stakes are just as high for the US.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[rtb61]

The IP exists in treaty between countries, all the signatories to that treaty, that it passes through a third party does not abrogate that copyright treaty, and copyright protects the authors not the country from where the works originate, the author or owners of the work are free to travel anywhere in the world covered by that treaty and that work shifts with them, they do not have to shift the work. Gambling is not viewed as a service in the majority of countries, it is viewed as gambling and separately legislated and controlled. As the gambling is occurring in both countries, legislation controlling gambling from both countries should apply, as any transfer of funds requires the cooperation of governments those governments are certainly entitled to establish controls on those transfers.

Your argument about other goods is of course factitious as those goods have to pass customs and be considered safe prior to being allowed into the country ie. apply the same conditions to the gambling. From my point of view I would ban all gambling unless the odds were equal and in fact all parties involved were gambling equally.

If 'you' read the article you will see it is only the opinion of the journalist, and until the case is actually settled no real conclusions can be drawn, they can only be speculated on. Although of course the copyright is clear cut and controlled by separate treaty, regardless of the assertions in the case.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[plague3106]

The IP exists in treaty between countries, all the signatories to that treaty, that it passes through a third party does not abrogate that copyright treaty, and copyright protects the authors not the country from where the works originate, the author or owners of the work are free to travel anywhere in the world covered by that treaty and that work shifts with them, they do not have to shift the work.

The treaty you talk about is part of joining the WTO though; so if the WTO rules a nation does not have to respect the IP of another country, it stands to reason the country could export. To not allow it would discourage smaller countries from joining the WTO, because they'd effectively have no power.

Gambling is not viewed as a service in the majority of countries, it is viewed as gambling and separately legislated and controlled. As the gambling is occurring in both countries, legislation controlling gambling from both countries should apply, as any transfer of funds requires the cooperation of governments those governments are certainly entitled to establish controls on those transfers.

The gambling is only occuring in one country; this works like sales tax in the US. You are charged sales tax only if the server is in the same jurisdiction. If not, the seller is not obligated to collect the sales tax. Governments have nothing to do with bank transactions; I am free to convert my money to another currency and use it in another country.

Your argument about other goods is of course factitious as those goods have to pass customs and be considered safe prior to being allowed into the country ie. apply the same conditions to the gambling. From my point of view I would ban all gambling unless the odds were equal and in fact all parties involved were gambling equally.

There is nothing life threatening about gambling online. Its not your right as an individual to interfere with the actions of two consenting parties. The only factor to consider is that the gaming site is honest about its payout chances; dishonesty would be fraud. Otherwise, you should have no say in what two consenting parties do with their money.

If 'you' read the article you will see it is only the opinion of the journalist, and until the case is actually settled no real conclusions can be drawn, they can only be speculated on. Although of course the copyright is clear cut and controlled by separate treaty, regardless of the assertions in the case.

The lawyer representing the island seems to share the same opinion, as apparently does the US, or they would not bother fighting the ruling. It simply wouldn't be worth the expense. Again, the treaty you refer to is one that countries adapt when they join the WTO. Maybe you should research the WTO a bit more.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[rtb61]

What utter nonsense, no matter how many times you included my comments in your post it does not make yours correct (well except the parts were you are quoting me of course). Copyright is bound to individuals and companies not countries, just as patents are similarly protected, the owner of the patent or copyright has patent and copyright in all countries that are signatories to that agreement.

In no country in the world is carte blanche given to agreements between people all those agreements are still bound and limited by the law and there is no country that does not place clearly defined limits on gambling. All financial transaction require the agreement of the countries involved in those transactions, you are in fact not free to remove money from one country and take it to another, you require the consent of both countries to conduct that transaction and that consent can be and in fact has often been withdrawn.

As for contesting the court case, of course they would contest it, it would be arrogantly stupid to not turn up to court, as it would degrade the future value of the court, when the US government wishes to use the court themselves.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Arr, matey, it's actually been there all the time, and it's called MP3Sparks.com. You can even use the same account of old...

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[1u3hr]

Why do the people who live in 'these guys' countries want to get outta said countries and come live in the U.S.?

There are 6 or 7 billion of us "these guys" in the world. We're not all trying to get Green Cards or wading across the Rio Grande. Most of us really are happy never to visit your country. And we wish you'd butt out of trying to tell us how to run ours. Thanks.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[plague3106]

What utter nonsense, no matter how many times you included my comments in your post it does not make yours correct (well except the parts were you are quoting me of course).

The only comments of yours which I include ARE quotes from you, so that you can see what points I'm responding to.

Copyright does not exist at all without a government enforcement of it. In THIS case both countries we are talking about are members of the WTO, WHICH STATES HOW SIGNATORIES MUST RESPECT COPYRIGHT AND OTHER IP LAWS. What part of that don't you get? The WTO ALSO gets to say if one country may IGNORE those IP laws as compensation should a defendant be found guilty of violating some other portion of the WTO laws.

In no country in the world is carte blanche given to agreements between people all those agreements are still bound and limited by the law and there is no country that does not place clearly defined limits on gambling.

The WTO court disagrees, which is why it ruled against the US. The court found that, even though the US probably didn't intend to allow gambling, that it in fact did enter into such an agreement to do so.

All financial transaction require the agreement of the countries involved in those transactions, you are in fact not free to remove money from one country and take it to another, you require the consent of both countries to conduct that transaction and that consent can be and in fact has often been withdrawn.

Really, so people give up thier cash when they board an international flight? They lose access to their credit or debit cards? In this case, the US DID open the doors for international gambling, and according to a treaty it entered into it MUST comply with that treaty or face consequences (in this case, Antigua would be allowed to violate US IP).

As for contesting the court case, of course they would contest it, it would be arrogantly stupid to not turn up to court, as it would degrade the future value of the court, when the US government wishes to use the court themselves.

The only options are to contest or not show up at all? What about simply accepting the punishment? That's a viable option as well. Or, they could remove the restriction on international gambling. Both those options are still on the table, at least that's what I got from the article I read.

Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming

[jwo7777777]

This kind of free thinking and speech is monstrous! What your country needs is a Department of Homeland Security ... like ours :) !!!

Then you can safely rest in the knowledge that your every email or forum posting is thoroughly reviewed by Big Brothe ... I mean ... the DHS. You could feel secure knowing that at this very moment your DHS is planning an armed raid against those who would dare disagree with the Vaterland.

Imagine getting an all expense paid trip to a mystery location (renditioned with a hood over your head)!! At the generous resort you could practice competitive water boarding, repetitive flogging, and professional joint dislocation!

Join the many others who rapturously enjoy giving to what they think is a humane cause only to have the organization show up on the 'supports terrorism' list later. Many have expressed their joy over having to retain lawyers and prove their innocence rather than enduring the ignominy of assumed innocence and a prosecutorial burden of proof.

Allowed?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Allowed by whom? The WTO? You should realize by now that the US doesn't give a shit about international organizations and their silly "rules." America. Fuck Yeah.

Re:Allowed?

[moderatorrater]

When it comes to international politics, military strength counts for a lot. Besides, every other country defies them, just not as openly, so the organizations would be ineffective anyway. However, in this case I think the US may have to tread more lightly since our economy relies heavily on exporting copyrighted materials. Defying the international community on an economic matter is much worse than defying them on a military matter.

Re:Allowed?

[Xylaan]

Ah, but see, it's the use of the WTO's treaty provisions which the US is using to force many other nations to adopt DMCA-like legislation. If the US starts saying 'I don't have to pay attention to the WTO', they risk other countries doing the same, and ignoring the provisions the home grown lobbyists want.

Re:Allowed?

[bcmm]

Allowed by the WTO. I will mean that if Antigua did pirate US stuff, the US would not be able to get the WTO to apply any sanctions. Which is pretty much all they could do, as Antigua is not in the Us and it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.

Re:Allowed?

[MightyMartian]

Allowed by the WTO. I will mean that if Antigua did pirate US stuff, the US would not be able to get the WTO to apply any sanctions. Which is pretty much all they could do, as Antigua is not in the Us and it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.

I'm sure the MPAA is working on a draft war declaration as we speak.

Re:Allowed?

[superpulpsicle]

it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.

That depends on your definition of hard. People have fought over sugar, weed and other happy substances. I guess DVDs could also be on the list. It better be a good movie.

Re:Allowed?

[hendridm]

Um, the royal "we" care when it's in our favor, jerk. But then again, we are also insane.

/shedding a tear for Allofmp3

Re:Allowed?

[Anonymous Coward]

You had me at 'Dicks fuck pussies'.

Re:Allowed?

[hax0r_this]

Er, you mean WMDs (Windows Media Discs) don't you?

Re:Allowed?

[Frosty Piss]

it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs. it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.

On the other hand, all those Al Queda terrorists that are using off-shore gambling in Antigua to launder their death money might provide the Whitehouse Junta plenty of ammo to freeze Antigua's assets that are in or pass through US banking.

Re:Allowed?

[Arcane_Rhino]

I'm sure the MPAA is working on a draft war declaration as we speak.

No kidding. It might be amusing to watch anti-war Hollywood suddenly discover that, while war is always wrong, a "narrow" use of the US military is sometimes necessary for the greater good.

Re:Allowed?

[darkonc]

hard to convince anyone that you need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs. Just? JUST???!!!

My god, man, we're talking about pirates here! High seas battles, raped women and children, missing gold, plunder at the bottom of the sea, "arg matey" and worse!

Those cretins are almost as bad as terrorists.

Unless you want to have your next sailing trip interrupted by these cannon-toting freaks, you'd better support a war!

((Those who take me seriously, deserve to. -- Shane Connoly))

Re:Allowed?

['nother poster]

We shall be initiating hostilities over "From Justin to Kelly".

Re:Allowed?

[Ryan Amos]

That, and congress is full of ninjas. It's true.

Re:Allowed?

[n dot l]

I'm sure the MPAA is working on a draft war declaration as we speak. Don't forget the matching propaganda campaign, with thrillers like: Saving Private Ryan's Copyright, James Bond: Dr. No...Not Iraq - Bomb Antigua, and We're Out Of Bourne Books But Here's Matt Damon Asking You To Please Bomb Antigua Anyway...

On the plus side, with this sort of motivation behind Hollywood they might turn out to be good movies.

Re:Allowed?

[microbee]

as Antigua is not in the Us and it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.

I am not so sure about that. I mean, we've had wars for oil that did not even belong to us.

Re:Allowed?

[Thansal]

Just? JUST???!!!

My god, man, we're talking about pirates here! High seas battles, raped women and children, missing gold, plunder at the bottom of the sea, "arg matey" and worse!

Those cretins are almost as bad as terrorists.

Unless you want to have your next sailing trip interrupted by these cannon-toting freaks, you'd better support a war!

God, if it was anything like this I would be downloading and distributing as fast as I could!

Re:Allowed?

[d0rp]

That depends on your definition of hard. People have fought over sugar, weed and other happy substances. I guess DVDs could also be on the list. It better be a good movie. And just think, they can get documentary film crews to film the war and then sell that too!

Re:Allowed?

[ePhil_One]

That, and congress is full of ninjas. It's true.

Of course you can't see them, they're Ninjas!!!

Re:Allowed?

[cHALiTO]

I don't think America's military might is what scares most countries (excepting those whith which you already have some kind of conflict), but actually economic/financial and political might is the problem. America can fight so many stupid wars before things start to get really ugly internally, the problem is that even when in deficit, the US has incredible economical and financial muscle. Subtle threats to drive a small country's economy down the drain with a few moves can lead to misery just as quick and maybe more lastingly (is that a word?) than a conventional war.

Re:Allowed?

[ksd1337]

That, and congress is full of ninjas. It's true. Pirate ninjas! It's pirate ninjas! Why doesn't anyone get it right? And while you're at it, don't forget the laser-shark-forehead infested waters.

Re:Allowed?

[jddj]

If we're starting a new war in Antigua, can I go? The weather's supposed to be great down there!

Re:Allowed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that why we never see them working?

Re:Allowed?

[Darby]

the problem is that even when in deficit, the US has incredible economical and financial muscle.

Well, except, of course, when China threatens to crash our currency. Then we start licking their balls very nicely since we've been completely sold out to them by the current pack of thieves in Washington.

Re:Allowed?

[Guppy]

Ah, that would explain the monkey in the oval office then. Don't see any robots anywhere yet, although if Cheney get into an accident maybe we'll have a chance to see if he really does have a cyborg endoskeleton.

Re:Allowed?

[grassy_knoll]

a "narrow" use of the US military is sometimes necessary for the greater good.

Antigua has oil?

Re:Allowed?

[jedidiah]

War? What War?

A few Sea Cadets could blockade the place.

Re:Allowed?

[MrNiceguy_KS]

You know, compared to a Vista install disc, Sarin doesn't seem so bad.

Re:Allowed?

[flaming error]

> it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you
> need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.

1) There are plenty of Americans who'd never question it. What was Grenada about?
2) In today's USA, the commander-in-chief doesn't really care if anybody else is convinced.
3) We wouldn't go to war over DVDs, we'd be fighting over terrorism or child pornography.

Re:Allowed?

[ultranova]

My god, man, we're talking about pirates here! High seas battles, raped women and children, missing gold, plunder at the bottom of the sea, "arg matey" and worse!

Are you trying to say that being a pirate increases my chances of getting laid ? Arg Matey, load the torrents !

Re:Allowed?

[Tango42]

I don't think the economic might is the issue, it's the political might. If the rest of the world wasn't so keen to be friends with the US, they would be able to counter any economic action taken by the US. With Tony Blair's resignation, that situation has improved marginally (Gordon Brown may not be particularly anti-US, but he's no Blair). With India and China growing quickly, and the EU expanding and becoming (slowing) more cohesive, the US is becoming less and less powerful both politically and economically.

Re:Allowed?

[xtracto]

Us and it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.

Don't you know that piracy helps terrorism, and terrorism is the mother of all evil and must be exterminated before they use their WMDs?.

Re:Allowed?

[SIIHP]

Except that would ruin their economy and the world's too.

Other than being completely wrong though, you have a point.

Re:Allowed?

[EdBear69]

Allowed by the WTO. I will mean that if Antigua did pirate US stuff, the US would not be able to get the WTO to apply any sanctions. Which is pretty much all they could do, as Antigua is not in the Us and it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.

I'm sure the MPAA is working on a draft war declaration as we speak.

You can download the war declaration now! The torrent just hit the net 3 hours ago...

Re:Allowed?

[WingedEarth]

It's not real America's financial muscle, but rather the financial muscle of the international banking system that controls the America's economy, among others. But since the same people control the media and information, they'll definitely be interested in throwing their weight around to destroy or alienate an upstart nation like Antigua. The result will be that Antigua will be forced to forge a more self-reliant economy that isn't driven by finance. Then they'll be able to make friends with other such blacklisted countries like Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, and they'll eventually form an alliance of independent, self-sufficient nations free from the international banking system that's turning the rest of the world into a prison planet (just like Alex Jones says).

Re:Allowed?

[skeeto]

This reminds me of a quote from America: The Book (page 45),

[A]n island country is about to get a can of "police action" opened up on them.

Re:Allowed?

[DeusExCalamus]

Just? JUST???!!! My god, man, we're talking about pirates here! High seas battles, raped women and children, missing gold, plunder at the bottom of the sea, "arg matey" and worse! Those cretins are almost as bad as terrorists. Unless you want to have your next sailing trip interrupted by these cannon-toting freaks, you'd better support a war! We must always think of the children!!

Re:Allowed?

[Anonymous Coward]

anti-war Hollywood

Uh, what?

Re:Allowed?

[DragonWriter]

Allowed by the WTO. I will mean that if Antigua did pirate US stuff, the US would not be able to get the WTO to apply any sanctions. Which is pretty much all they could do, as Antigua is not in the Us and it would be awfully hard to convince anyone that you need a new war just cause of some pirate DVDs.

If that was true (and the history of US interventions around the world might make one question it, in the first place), all Antigua would have to worry about is the possibility of a US administration, at the behest of moneyed US interests, manufacturing false evidence relating to something like terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction, etc.

But no US administration would ever do that, right?

Re:Allowed?

[aeschenkarnos]

The US Army has been proven by the Iraq debacle to be a paper tiger. It exists primarily for two purposes: (1) to channel tax dollars to arms dealers; (2) to substitute for a properly-constituted unemployment benefits and vocational training system.

Further, the economic "might" of the US has spiralled down the drain of debt. If you were to apply for a hundred credit cards with a $10,000 limit and max them all out, could you consider yourself a millionaire?

This is what happens when you let the foxes, the Republican party, in charge of the henhouse. There are blood and feathers everywhere, and fat foxes.

Re:Allowed?

[bcmm]

OK, to rephrase: surely the ??AA cannot afford to buy a war? They might be rich, but they're nothing next to the oil firms.

Re:Allowed?

[stupid_is]

They have cars - they must have gas/petrol/oil. That's probably just cause enough

Re:Allowed?

[Darby]

Except that would ruin their economy and the world's too.

Other than being completely wrong though, you have a point.

It might well do that, but it doesn't change the fact that by taking out massive loans to fund a worthless war we have shifted the balance of power very much to their side.

So, no, there was nothing wrong in what I said. Of course, addressing the actual point instead of snarking off would involve you actually knowing what you're talking about so I didn't really expect that.

Re:Allowed?

[Darby]

Except that would ruin their economy and the world's too.

Did I say it was a good idea? No, in fact I didn't.


Other than being completely wrong though, you have a point.

By which you mean I am correct, but you are unable to address the point so you just made a snarky remark without actually adding anything to the discussion.
Congratulations.

Re:Allowed?

[phoenixwade]

The US Army has been proven by the Iraq debacle to be a paper tiger. What a stupid, uninformed remark.

As a Military Force All four of the Military services have proven themselves anything but a paper tigers. As a Police Force it's a different story altogether. Even spread as thin as they are, fighting on two different fronts, they are performing very, very well. It was not the force, or it's capabilities that are the problem in Iraq or in Afghanistan, it's the polices set at the highest levels that cause the current situation. The Bush administration had a very sharp knife, and decided to hammer nails with it. Don't confuse misuse of a tool with the capability of that tool.

The "Debacle" in Iraq was because the US Military was limited in what it was allowed to do to accomplish the mission. The initial mission was "Get Saddam, and those in his regime" - check, roger, done. Now it's "Stabilize the region" um, okay, then we need to pick a side and wipe them out, they have, after all, been warring with each other for hundreds of years..... Obviously that isn't really an option, and it's not a job for an army, it's a job for Diplomats, engineers, social workers, and the like. The "Debacle" in Iraq, in other words, has nothing to do with the capabilities of the Armed services.

Re:Allowed?

[SIIHP]

"So, no, there was nothing wrong in what I said."

Yes, actually there was. You claimed that we don't have financial muscle because China can threaten to crash our currency. Except, there's no value to a threat that destroys them too, because we know they won't follow through on it, so yes, actually, you were wrong.

"Of course, addressing the actual point instead of snarking off would involve you actually knowing what you're talking about so I didn't really expect that."

You didn't make a point, you were fearmongering because you're ignorant.

Read this

http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/speeches/2005/11_09 _05.htm

and you won't be ignorant anymore. (at least not on this subject)

Re:Allowed?

[SIIHP]

Guy, you replied twice to the same post because I got you so twisted about being wrong.

That pretty much says it all.

Thanks.

Re:Allowed?

[DragonWriter]

OK, to rephrase: surely the ??AA cannot afford to buy a war? They might be rich, but they're nothing next to the oil firms.

Probably not, I was mostly joking.

Then again, the *AAs (the MPAA in particular) include a lot of the media powerhouses that also control broadcast and cable—that is, the people who control directly the resources that politicians seek money from other people to buy in the first place (the corporate parents or siblings of ABC, NBC, Fox, and CNN, among others, are part of the MPAA.)

Re:Allowed?

[B_SharpC]

LIES. Terrible St Louis Fed article. The author lies about how banks make money as difference tween deposits and loans.
 
How do you know when a banker economist lies? His lips move.

Re:Allowed?

[SIIHP]

Um, ok, thanks? You can check his figures you know...

Or you can engage in an incoherent rant that betrays your status as an escaped mental patient...

Re:Allowed?

[Darby]

Yes, actually there was. You claimed that we don't have financial muscle because China can threaten to crash our currency. Except, there's no value to a threat that destroys them too, because we know they won't follow through on it, so yes, actually, you were wrong

Except you ignore the fact that we were just pressuring them on trade, they did make that threat and we did back down.


You didn't make a point, you were fearmongering because you're ignorant.

Read this

http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/speeches/2005/11_09 _05.htm

and you won't be ignorant anymore. (at least not on this subject)


So your idea of a rational point is ignoring current events and pointing to an old, poorly written opinion piece?!?

Sure, Sparky, live in your delusional fantasy world where year and a half old opinions you agree with actually matter and a knowledge of real current events is ignorance.

Yep, you're a shining example of how the stupidity, cowardice, and ignorance of the typical American allows the most insane policies to continue.

Re:Allowed?

[SIIHP]

You tell yourself whatever you need to if it makes you feel better.

But you're still wrong.

Re:Allowed?

[Darby]

You tell yourself whatever you need to if it makes you feel better.

But you're still wrong.

Right, because the voices in your head said so?

Look, when you don't know anything about a subject you should keep quiet instead of proving yourself to be a fool.

Continuing after it's already been demonstrated is just silly.

Re:Allowed?

[rozz]

The US Army has been proven by the Iraq debacle to be a paper tiger. What a stupid, uninformed remark.

As a Military Force All four of the Military services have proven themselves anything but a paper tigers. As a Police Force it's a different story altogether. Even spread as thin as they are, fighting on two different fronts, they are performing very, very well. It was not the force, or it's capabilities that are the problem in Iraq or in Afghanistan, it's the polices set at the highest levels that cause the current situation. The Bush administration had a very sharp knife, and decided to hammer nails with it.
sooo .. basically the US army is the greatest, the only small problem being that it has retards instead of commanders and the rest are stupid enough to listen to them ... way to go!

Don't confuse misuse of a tool with the capability of that tool.
oh reeaaally !?... let me give you a sample .. you have a mouth which i am sure is perfectly capable of eating gourmet food ... but if you eat shit the whole day, you think it will be a huge confusion to call you a shit eater?

The "Debacle" in Iraq was because the US Military was limited in what it was allowed to do to accomplish the mission. The initial mission was "Get Saddam, and those in his regime" - check, roger, done. Now it's "Stabilize the region" um, okay, then we need to pick a side and wipe them out, they have, after all, been warring with each other for hundreds of years..... Obviously that isn't really an option, and it's not a job for an army, it's a job for Diplomats, engineers, social workers, and the like. The "Debacle" in Iraq, in other words, has nothing to do with the capabilities of the Armed services.
i think both you and that army need something else ... you may start with getting a clue.

In other news

[xzvf]

Intellegence indicates WMD hidden in Antequa. Marines sent to investigate.

Re:In other news

[Harmonious Botch]

Weapons of Mass Duplication?

Re:In other news

[Leftist Troll]

See those trailers? I assure you, they're mobile DVD manufacturing plants.

Re:In other news

[jez9999]

Where the hell is 'Antequa'?

Re:In other news

['nother poster]

Not too far from Martin Neak?

Re:In other news

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Re the design of the 3-trailer system in the illustration. How the heck do you DISconnect the plumbing between the trailers without getting a massive exposure to the agent? Even flushing it out with bleach could easily miss some material in crevices of the connectors.

Re:In other news

[Chris Mattern]

Where the hell is 'Antequa'?

Antiqua is somewhere in the distant past. We're dealing with *time-travelling* software pirates here. They're the worst kind.

Chris Mattern

Re:In other news

[modecx]

You're not supposed to undo the plumbing, silly. That's why these vehicles of mass destruction were supposed to be driven, three astride, by a crack team of Elite Guard Stunt Drivers!

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, Windows Media Discs.

Re:In other news

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Ah, but what if they've come back from the year 3000, when copyright on works written in 2010 and before finally expired? Would their copies of the software, which were not under copyright when the copies were created, be subject to the copyrights if the time-traveling software pirates brought them back to our time?

Facinating and legally brilliant

[downix]

What the lawyer has done is basically utilized the US's own insistace at the WTO against them, and really leveredged the law to it's extreme. So, either the US gets shot or hung, depending on which way the case goes. In either case, the US's legal case just died.

Re:Facinating and legally brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean hanged? Or are you talking about our use of the products most often spammed to us?

Re:Facinating and legally brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the whole thing is a giant cock-up for the USA...

Re:Facinating and legally brilliant

[EVil Lawyer]

It's not legally brilliant. It's obvious. The WTO has set procedures when one party claims a violation, and those procedures explicitly allow for this request. He would have been guilty of malpractice and complete incompetence if he had not done this.

Regards.

Re:Facinating and legally brilliant

[phantomcircuit]

This is quite possibly the most brilliant legal maneuver I have ever seen.

But it is doomed to fail, simply because the US government is not going to pay him and they don't actually own the IP that is being handed over.

Frankly if Antigua becomes a major exporter of goods made outside of patent agreements there would be significant consequences to there economy (they obviously aren't cuba).

I am confussed

[svendsen]

So I assume the US banned gambling in other countries via the net because the govt wasn't getting a piece? Is that the bottom line? Or is there another reason?

Re:I am confussed

[moderatorrater]

It's also because gambling overseas cuts into the income of the casinos based in the US. IIRC, it's mostly the casino lobbies pushing the legislation about off shore gambling.

Re:I am confussed

[soulsteal]

Gambling was banned because it is Wrong and Evil.© Oh, and the govt. wasn't making any money either.

Re:I am confussed

[cdrguru]

Although there is little evidence of this on the Internet, from my association with gaming I believe the complete ban on online gaming is not just due to taxation but also regulation. Once you open the door to online gaming you have a low barrier to entry into potentially the most lucrative criminal enterprise possible.

Las Vegas was the Fort Knox and money printing machine for the mob in the US in the 1950's. The guys at the top had some brains and understood they had to play reasonably fair with the suckers or they wouldn't come back and the suckers had to have a "good time" while they were there. This put limits on what could and could not be done.

I don't see any limits when you move it online. How do you know if you are being cheated? You wouldn't. You get to hear from people praising their big wins. And believe me, there is plenty of money going around so people can win big. The difference between a 98% payout and a 95% payout is incredible. Bring that down to 50% and you have something that wouldn't be legit in the US but would bring in billions.

Why couldn't it be 50%? Online it certainly could and nobody would be looking at the annual reports from a site run from either some small Carribean country or Russia.

I do not see how it could be regulated. With the current grab-all-you-can philosophy in the US players would flock to sites offering the opportunity to win big. And you would have TV ads running with extremely happy big winners. Even if such ads were illegal on TV, you would have them on YouTube.

Sorry, I just see it as a new and better way to part dollars from suckers at a faster pace.

Re:I am confussed

[Grishnakh]

I'm sorry, I don't see the problem. If you want to gamble away all your money, that's your prerogative. It doesn't matter if there's a 95% payout or a 0% payout; you're still most likely to lose. The government has no business regulating this.

Re:I am confussed

[AuMatar]

The sad thing is that there are ways to comprimise on the money part. Legalize it only at sites that report winnings to the government. I'll happily pay taxes on my winnings in exchange for having the games regulated by the Nevada gaming comission.

Re:I am confussed

[Anonymous Coward]

Bonus: it was pushed through as a last minute Rider* on legislation that was assured to be passed.

Sidestory: A friend of mine is an immigrant here in the U.S, currently without a green card. On his 21st birthday, he became no longer under his parents wing with regards to the immigration process and still on the waiting list due to 9/11. Yes, 9/11 directly a/effected him. Prior to 21, he could also only work at limited business'. Due to this, he gambled online frequently, which supplemented his income and spending habits. Seeing that hes the spendy type, most of it went back into the economy. Clothes, eating out, drinks, CD's, etc.... Some he kept, but that is for his upcoming trip to Vegas. He might actually have around 10K by now, by the way.....

So short of the the Gov. not taxing it, I fail to see how ANY of that should be illegal. The Internet should be left GREY with regards to commerce. The Gov. already taxes us enough. Any additional taxes they put in place there, are assured to go to pork projects that will so no economic or valuable return.

Re:I am confussed

[nelsonal]

The difference is marketing and volatility. Sure net the Casino wins, but that doesn't mean that there can't be times or even individuals who do pretty well in the mean time (due only to the randomness of the process) 95% payout will result in a decent pool of "winners" who will do your marketing for you.

Re:I am confussed

[mosch]

The actual ban was a last-minute, backdoor provision, slipped into another bill with no debate and no formal vote.

It was widely expected to fail, but then Bill Frist tacked it onto a port security bill.

Looking at his lifetime donors, it doesn't appear to have been for a traditional special interest group. Instead, I think it was just a failing congressman, trying to appeal to the fascist evangelicals, who wish to legislate their morality on the rest of us.

Re:I am confussed

[magarity]

It doesn't matter if there's a 95% payout or a 0% payout; you're still most likely to lose. The government has no business regulating this
 
A 0% payout means you're DEFINITELY going to lose, not likely to lose. At fairly run gambling games the house is 'more likely' to win than you are but you do not have unreasonably low odds at many games.

There are different levels of risk averseness in different people. Apparently you are highly risk averse and consider all gambling not worthwhile. I tend to agree; while the odds are x/y that you might win at a certain game when conducted according to the game's rules then some people think its worth the chance or worth the entertainment to try. We can mathematically calculate the odds of getting jackpot on a slot machine with so many wheels and so many symbols per wheel to be x/y. When the online casino's unregulated computer makes the odds really x/(y^2) then players who are expecting x/y odds are being cheated and there's practically no way to know it. A B&M casino can be inspected physically for evidence of this even in their computerized slot machines because regulators can go in person and check it out - examining the executing binary if necessary. With a server in who knows where on the wild internet, there ain't no telling what its odds are even if it claims x/y. They can pay people to claim to have made big winnings in ads, etc, when really the odds are 0/y. They could publish completely fake auditing reports to show they only make a small percentage, etc, etc.

That's why its a big deal and that's why government needs to regulate it.

Re:I am confussed

[m2943]

So, you are saying that we should help people who don't have work visas by letting them gamble???

Your attempt at an argument that gambling should be legal because it helps some people is about as stupid as it gets. Gambling should be legal simply because fighting it is costly and because we shouldn't have to live in a nanny state. But stop spreading stupidity like claiming that gambling is a good way of making money.

Re:I am confussed

[mdozturk]

This happened in the past, people in Detroit were driving over to Windsor, Canada and gambling their money away. Shortly after that three casinos opened in Detroit: if you can't beat them, join them.

Re:I am confussed

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gov. already taxes us enough.

Obviously you haven't been hanging out with enough left-wing groups. Taxes are the way to prosperity!! Lets all share the pain. This land is your land, and this land is my land. Its our land!! YAY!!

Re:I am confussed

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual ban was a last-minute, backdoor provision, slipped into another bill with no debate and no formal vote.
It was widely expected to fail, but then Bill Frist tacked it onto a port security bill.
Looking at his lifetime donors, it doesn't appear to have been for a traditional special interest group. Instead, I think it was just a failing congressman, trying to appeal to the fascist evangelicals, who wish to legislate their morality on the rest of us.

PS: Frist Post?

Re:I am confussed

[VJ42]

Sorry, I just see it as a new and better way to part dollars from suckers at a faster pace. A fool and his money are easily parted; doing it faster is called efficiency. Seriously, if someone* wants to bet their life savings on red then it's up to them.

*someone in this case means an adult of sound mind.

Re:I am confussed

[JaegerTCat]

Bring that down to 50% and you have something that wouldn't be legit in the US but would bring in billions. 50% illegal? Haven't checked lottery payouts recently, have you?

Re:I am confussed

[GreyPoopon]

But stop spreading stupidity like claiming that gambling is a good way of making money.

My favorite part was the argument that the money earned at gambling goes back into the local economy. Never mind the fact that the global net income from gambling is negative (for the gamblers, that is)....

Re:I am confussed

[popejeremy]

Which is stupid because the explosion of online poker got more people into the hobby and got people like me going to B&M casinos who never would have otherwise.

Re:I am confussed

[halcyon1234]

How do you know if you are being cheated? You wouldn't.

Actually, yes, you can.

First, a sucker who wants to lose their money will. They are the outside cases, and will be ignored.

There's secondary research you can do. You can check out any of the watchdog sites, like casinomeister, that catalog the casinos into categories like reputable, rogue, avoid, etc. Look up any casino you're thinking of putting your money into.

Or you can do primary research, which involves tracking thousands of results, and seeing if the resultant house edges are in statistical agreement with the game you're playing. There are other checks you can do-- such as, over several thousand hands, does the player friendly "Ace" card come up 1/13 times?

When it comes down to it, it isn't in an online casino's interest to cheat. They already have a guaranteed, built-in profit. The only thing they need is players to put money into it. So a dishonest casino will get some money, found out and have a ruined reputation-- or an honest one will get a bit less money, but will stay in business to keep generating revenue.

Re:I am confussed

[xouumalperxe]

Assuming you're gambling against a casino, yes. If you're gambling against other players (I'll go out on a limb and assume he's playing Poker here), it's about even if everybody's clueless, or profitable for those who understand the game better, because usually games that pit the players against each other have completely symmetrical rules.

Re:I am confussed

[6Yankee]

tacked it onto a port security bill

What kind of fucked-up system allows this to happen?

Seriously.

Re:I am confussed

[Grishnakh]

That's fine; if a casino wants to pay out 95% so that more people come and gamble there, then good for them. But the government has no business regulating this. If a competing casino wants to pay out 2% instead, that's their business. It's up to consumers to choose wisely. If they can't or won't do that, that's their problem.

Re:I am confussed

[UbuntuDupe]

What are you talking about? My online gambling site is subject to stringent regulations to make sure they don't overstate payouts or take an undisclosed share of my funds. It's based in America, but I access it online. For most of the games I play, the payout is REALLY high, too, above 99.5%.

It's Vanguard Investments, in case anyone's wondering.

Re:I am confussed

[mosch]

Sadly this is incredibly common. Frist had publicly announced his intention to attach the gambling ban to any must-pass legislation that came through.

It's not even the worst example of this kind of behavior. I think that is saved for the conference committee trick. If you're not aware, that is where the House and the Senate pass slightly different versions of a bill, and then a "conference committee" resolves the differences in the bill. But sometimes instead of just resolving a difference, they'll add in new language, or completely change the meaning of the laws that were just passed, thus neatly overriding the intent of the legislature.

Government is a hell of a scam.

Re:I am confussed

[Grishnakh]

No, that's not a good reason for the government to regulate it. There's no government regulation if I buy some goods on Ebay from a seller in Russia; if he just keeps the money and doesn't send me anything, I'm out. It's the same thing here; if you're dumb enough to gamble your money away in an online casino located someplace offshore, it's your own fault if you lose (which you're statistically likely to do anyway, wherever you gamble).

The government has no business regulating things in other countries, period. If you want to risk it, that's your choice, but if you get burned, that's your problem. I've bought stuff from overseas before, such as on Ebay, and luckily everything worked out, but I wouldn't risk a large sum of money doing so, only small amounts on non-essentials that I can afford to lose.

But the government also has no business regulating B&M casinos: these aren't businesses offering a product or service in exchange for your money, they're only offering you "entertainment" and a chance to win money. Whether they pay out 95% or 1% is their business; consumers can use word-of-mouth to decide which places pay out more if they really care about that. Casinos (domestic ones) making fake reports or paying people to claim they won can still be prosecuted for things like false advertising, but again, buyer beware. If you want "safe gambling" (relatively), invest in the stock market, not a slot machine.

Re:I am confussed

[Xonstantine]

I don't see any limits when you move it online. How do you know if you are being cheated? You wouldn't. You get to hear from people praising their big wins. And believe me, there is plenty of money going around so people can win big. The difference between a 98% payout and a 95% payout is incredible. Bring that down to 50% and you have something that wouldn't be legit in the US but would bring in billions. Because the reward doesn't justify the risk. Online casinos are already making billions, and the poker houses make their money from the rake and tournament fees, not by "cheating" their customers. There's plenty of competition for players out there, and any legitimate accusation of cheating or collusion would devastate these companies. And with something like poker and hand history, over time this would become apparent and would be exploited by competitors...and there is lots of competition in the online space.

Re:I am confussed

[plague3106]

I don't understand why anyone would "happily pay taxes" on anything.

Re:I am confussed

[darkwing_bmf]

The guys at the top had some brains and understood they had to play reasonably fair with the suckers or they wouldn't come back and the suckers had to have a "good time" while they were there. This put limits on what could and could not be done. I don't see any limits when you move it online. How do you know if you are being cheated?

Because the guys at the top have some brains and understand that they have to play reasonably fair with the suckers or they wouldn't come back. But thats not the reason gambling should be allowed. Here is the reason:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

Re:I am confussed

[idontgno]

Consider the maxim "Gambling is a voluntary tax on poor math skills."

Re:I am confussed

[Valar]

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong on your point about not knowing what the pay off is. Simple statistics can be used to find the pay out AND your margin of uncertainty in measuring it. Over more and more trials, this margin shrinks. This is something that anyone in a first semester statistics course should be able to do. In fact, there are websites that do just this-- apply statistics to online casinos and compile lists of which ones cheat.

Re:I am confussed

[Chris Mattern]

The general rule for gambling against other players is to look around the table and find the sucker. If you can't find him, he's probably you.

Chris Mattern

Re:I am confussed

[Chris Mattern]

There are different levels of risk averseness in different people. Apparently you are highly risk averse and consider all gambling not worthwhile.

No, "Highly risk averse" means you don't like a proposition where you're 90% likely to lose your money, but if you don't, you'll get back 20 times what you bet (a good-quality venture capital investment can look like this). Not liking Vegas gambling where the odds are expertly rigged against you is not "risk averse", but rather more along the lines of "intelligent".

Chris Mattern

Re:I am confussed

[Chris Mattern]

tacked it onto a port security bill

What kind of fucked-up system allows this to happen?

Seriously.

The system the US Congress has had since approximately forever. In committee, amendments may be proposed and the bill will be changed if the amendment passes. The same when it comes to a vote before the whole chamber. There is no rule that the amendment have anything whatsoever to the original bill. Getting what you want passed by getting it attached to a must-pass bill is a favorite tactic.

Chris Mattern

Re:I am confussed

[Myopic]

So you don't believe suckers should be free to make bad financial decisions?

Well, really, I don't either.

Re:I am confussed

[StikyPad]

Every time somebody places a wager, an angel loses its wings.

Re:I am confussed

[SIIHP]

And people who play would compile databases and catch them. The odds for these games aren't a secret, and deviation would be instantly suspect.

Why is this so hard for you people to grasp?

"That's why its a big deal and that's why government needs to regulate it."

I don't really think your inability to understand basic statistical analysis is a big deal at all, and it's certainly not a reason to regulate it.

Re:I am confussed

[PsychosisC]

Bring that down to 50% and you have something that wouldn't be legit in the US but would bring in billions.

Insightful post, but do note that the average lotto payout averages somewhere from 40-55%.

Re:I am confussed

[AuMatar]

I play poker. Its a tax on the other guy's bad math skills.

Re:I am confussed

[number11]

I do not see how it could be regulated. With the current grab-all-you-can philosophy in the US players would flock to sites offering the opportunity to win big.

If those sites were US casinos, they would still be regulated. Given a level playing field, why would people bet in Antigua or Nigeria, rather than in Vegas or somewhere else where they can trust the oversight. As much as you can trust it now, anyhow. Why wouldn't US casinos offer "the opportunity to win big" online? If Vegas is delivering a 98% payout and Antigua only delivering a 50% payout, people will figure that out quickly (even if Antigua lies about it), they'll start by betting in both, and favor the one that is "lucky".

Re:I am confussed

[AuMatar]

Because most people aren't sociopaths, and recognize the necessity and usefulness of paying for the needs of society? I think taxes on the upper class are far too low (and those on the lower two quintiles far too high).

Re:I am confussed

[quantum bit]

Getting what you want passed by getting it attached to a must-pass bill is a favorite tactic.

This only works because all politicians are spineless and won't vote against a "must pass" bill on principle. I bet if some critical spending bills got voted down / vetoed by the president for having unrelated riders, this practice would become a lot less common.

Re:I am confussed

[istewart]

There are already thousands of people keeping track of all the hands they play at online poker rooms and performing statistical analysis. A crooked poker room would not last long under this scrutiny. Even regular, house-advantage casino games could have this sort of analysis performed on them, and 50% payout rates would quickly be exposed. You can, in fact, know if you are being cheated. But really, it's not about whether or not you're being cheated, it's about how much the house is taking you for... in other words, how much do you want to spend on entertainment with the slight possibility of enrichment?

Re:I am confussed

[Phroggy]

What kind of fucked-up system allows this to happen? Ours.

Re:I am confussed

[Hatta]

But sometimes instead of just resolving a difference, they'll add in new language, or completely change the meaning of the laws that were just passed, thus neatly overriding the intent of the legislature.

How is this legal? If you rewrite the bill it's a different bill that has passed neither the House nor the Senate. This new bill needs to be passed by both houses before it can become a law. Seriously, where in the constitution is this allowed?

Re:I am confussed

[XO]

What about if you're playing a video poker game, that has a 104% payout? Ie, if you play it properly, you are guaranteed a 4% return on your investment over time. Is that gambling? :D

  (Yes, they exist)

Re:I am confussed

[GreyPoopon]

If you're gambling against other players (I'll go out on a limb and assume he's playing Poker here), it's about even if everybody's clueless, or profitable for those who understand the game better, because usually games that pit the players against each other have completely symmetrical rules.

I agree, but keep in mind that we're talking about online gambling, and whoever owns the web site is expecting to make some money off the transaction, so it's a net loss if the web site is operated outside of the country.

Re:I am confussed

[mabhatter654]

the situation is that the Federal govt has placed onerous rules on online or overseas gambling. If it were a universal ban like say Saudi Arabia, that would be one thing, but we allow most of the same games in some of our states competely legally and the govt even collects taxes on them. Therefore it is argued that it is "protectionist" for the feds to allow gambling in say Las Vegas, but not allow the same games to be played online in their country.

Re:I am confussed

[tsotha]

Actually that is incorrect. It's true bills that are different go into conference committees. But when they come out of the conference committee the new version has to pass both houses before it's sent to the president. It's true things get slipped in when the bills are being reconciled, but the full House and Senate get another chance to turn them down.

Re:I am confussed

[mosch]

Out of curiousity, how many bills have gone to conference committee, and then failed to pass?

And while technically you're correct, reality is somewhat different. In reality, it's become common for the senators to be voting on the conference report without having had time to read it. This is particularly problematic if one of the changes might be something like the addition or removal of the word 'not'.

Re:I am confussed

[Imsdal]

What kind of fucked-up system allows this to happen?

Yours.

Re:I am confussed

[GPL Apostate]

It's not a 'hobby' any more than huffing glue out of plastic bags is a hobby.

Which, incidentally, could be classified as being a 'hobby' I suppose, if one is struggling to justify making and distributing unauthorized copies of someone else's creative output and needs some cases to cite.

Re:I am confussed

[6Yankee]

It's not my system - I'm not an American, and I'm certainly not in a position to affect their system of government.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the box, are you? Still a tool, though.

Re:I am confussed

[nelsonal]

In the case of most table games, there are rules to be followed (while there are differences such as soft 17s once decided those decisions become effectively rules and should be followed as well). I think it's efficient to have an outside party regulate that casinos are following the rules (it would be costly for all players to monitor casinos to ensure that the rules were being followed). In the case of slot machines, it is much more costly because the rules and payouts change from machine to machine and due to the very wide variance it would be costly to the point of impossiblity for customers to monitor adherence to the payout schedule. Paying 85% while implying or stating 95% imposes a cost on all the other casinos (perception that all are unfair) so it's in their interest to be monitored for adherance to the standard. I'd suspect that if government monitoring were taken away most casinos would find an independant body to monitor adherance rather quickly.

Re:I am confussed

[plague3106]

In this country though we are supposed to be individuals which provide for ourselves. A standing army doesn't benifit us, the government throwing away the consitution through illegal campaigns (illegal wars, including war on drugs, terror, bad words etc.).

The lower class pretty much doesn't pay taxes, and us a hugely disproporiant amount of taxes (welfare, medicare, medicad, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc etc).

Not wanting a huge tax burden does not make you a sociopath. Nor are you a sociopath for letting people suffere the consequences of their own choices.

But don't worry, thanks to the taxes you so love, I'll be lower class soon too!

Re:I am confussed

[Imsdal]

It was quite obviously meant as a joke reference to the "Ours" comment. I am sorry that swished right above your head. Better luck next time!

That said, the "still a tool" comment was moderately funny. The first few dozen times we heard it. Sometimes making up your own insults are more effective.

Re:I am confussed

[AndersOSU]

You don't need cheating or collusion to get screwed at online poker, run of the mill incompetence will do just fine. For instance, if the pseudo random number generator is poorly implemented one player might know what cards everyone is holding. If that code is closed, proprietary, and not subject to regulation you can't tell if the guy across the table has it figured out. I'm not that familiar with the business, but are any of the poker houses running open code? If not, that seems like a pretty good reason to require regulation.

Re:I am confussed

[popejeremy]

We're talking about poker, not copying software. Poker is a hobby.

Re:I am confussed

[tsotha]

Well, that's a different issue. The fact of the matter is for the most part they don't read the bills at any time - before or after the conference committee. They rely on the staff to figure out whether to vote on it. But presumably the staff goes over the conference reconciled bill. And no, they're not perfect.

There was a case, either earlier this year or last year, where the final version of one of the bills had some insignificant difference due to a typographical error. In other words, the House and Senate passed different versions of the final bill. Nobody noticed until after the President signed it. Technically, I think, that bill didn't become law at that time.

Re:I am confussed

[yuna49]

Don't forget that 38 of the fifty states have lotteries. I suspect they were another big lobby in favor of restricting off-shore Internet gambling.

Re:I am confussed

[AuMatar]

Welcome to reality. The idea of the rugged individualist is, and always has been, a myth. Since the beginning of our species we've banded together in packs, then clans, then tribes, then nations in order to help provide for each other, help each other in times of need, and increase our chances of survival. As technology increased and as we formed large groups, we are able to spread the burden more and increase the safety net provided. This is the purpose of society and government- including ours.

Re:I am confussed

[6Yankee]

It would have been more obvious had you replied to the comment to which you were referring, don't you think?

Re:I am confussed

[Grishnakh]

I'd suspect that if government monitoring were taken away most casinos would find an independant body to monitor adherance rather quickly.

Now THAT sounds like a great idea to me.

Then if gamblers want to gamble someplace that's not completely rigged against them, they can choose a casino that's certified by xyz Gaming Certification. If they instead gamble at Offshore Casino Website, which isn't certified, then they're on their own. This wouldn't be much different from banking at a bank that isn't FDIC-insured.

Re:I am confussed

[plague3106]

The purpose of our government is to protect individual rights. Taking so much from people so that others may "benefit" does not make it right, nor is it something that we should continue. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face; likewise your right to sit on your ass and do nothing ends when it becomes a burden to me.

As far as your belief on what society does, many societies have historically gotten rid of those that would bring the society down. Indians would kill babies with obvious afflictions, for example.

Humans began to band together not to provide for each other, but to protect themselve from other humans. You really, really need to look at history a bit more.

Re:I am confussed

[AuMatar]

Once again, you need to meet reality. No man is an island. Your success only exists because you stand on the work that so many others have done in the past and continue to do today. You owe a debt to the rest of society to provide both for the next generation and for those less fortunate of this one. Don't like it? I think there's plenty of woods in Siberia or northern Canada you can go be a hermit in. Short of that, you're part of society and must contribute to it. Don't like it? Too bad- I really don't give a fuck what sociopathic selfish bastards liek yourself think.

Re:I am confussed

[nelsonal]

I agree. Except the FDIC is government backed (they operate as a separate entity until something goes really badly and then the taxpayers are on the hook). It's difficult for private entities to achieve similar credibility to that of a government especially in financial matters. Perhaps a large insurance company (Lloyd's or Buffett's firm) could back it.

Re:I am confussed

[plague3106]

I think you need a healthy dose of reality. In case you didn't know, communism failed. It failed because there was no motivation to excel and do better. People expected to be taken care of. Ultimately, such a system is doomed to failure.

Please explain to me how my tax money is being well spent to send members of our society to a desert to fight for more oil or some abstract war on terror? Please tell me how it benefits me or even society to wage the "war on drugs." Prohibition worked really well didn't it? I'm so glad that I can pay my debt to society by funding torture in Cuba and around the globe.

I also find it amusing that my "debt" must go to lazy idiots that can't keep their legs closed, who sit and do nothing be have more kids. Somehow apparently I "owe" them flat screen HD tvs and brand new trucks, things I can't even afford for myself.

I guess my debt also includes not being able to fix my own fucking house, so that more stupid lazy people can pile into the trailer park down the street.

What about THEIR debt to society? Don't they have an obligation to give back? Because all I see is constant taking and taking and taking.

Nevermind that living my life (which includes spending money) helps keep other people employed. The job I perform everyday helps. Although not so much, because a good chunk of my income goes to making sure someone that does nothing can afford a four-wheeler. Yes, because its more important for someone else to have something without working for it than it is for me to be able to use what I've earned.

Maybe YOU should move to a country that more closely matches your ideals instead of trying to drag down everyone to the lowest level here.

You want to know what people are really like? Go work in a food shelter and offer to help the homeless find and get jobs. See how many of them tell you they'd rather a handout.

Ya, that's some debt I owe. Retard.

Re:I am confussed

[AuMatar]

Lets see... strawman of communism, strawman of Iraq, strawman of drugs, strawman of torture, strawman of flat screen tvs... Tell you what- when you argue one of my points instead of setting up strawmen, get back to me.

Re:I am confussed

[plague3106]

You don't think your system of "redistributing wealth" more or less equally is communism? Everything else IS a problem that would simply vanish if it weren't for taxes. Call it a strawman all you want, these are STILL valid problems with expecting everyone to "pay their debt to society." I can give you the address of a trailer pack where if you like to see it for yourself.

Then go look up where your tax dollars are going; its going to these very programs.

But I suppose you'd rather stick you head in the sand than see that taxes simply steal from honest hardworking people to fund other people's agendas.

You also never exactly tell me what I'm building off of that didn't get paid for by my parents or I. It wasn't through taxes I got an education. I got one DESPITE taxes making it harder.

A Beautiful Thing Coming

[iPaige]

Can you imagine a place in the world with no such thing as IP rights and regulations? It would be an information hotspot like the world has never seen. You want music/movies/files, you got them, on demand, piped through a broadband connection. It's like a geeky vacation spot, with uber-souvenirs.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[mkavanagh]

yeah, and no research more advanced than finger-painting

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine a place in the world with no such thing as IP rights and regulations? It would be an information hotspot like the world has never seen. You want music/movies/files, you got them, on demand, piped through a broadband connection. It's like a geeky vacation spot, with uber-souvenirs.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[SomeJoel]

I assume buying the stuff in Antigua would be legal, but anything bought in Antigua (or on the internet from Antiguan sources) would remain illegal. So, if you want to enjoy your "geek hotspot", you'd actually have to physically BE in Antigua. It's legal to buy and sell Cuban cigars in other countries, but that doesn't make the legally obtained cigars any more legal to possess in the U.S.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until customs inspects your souvenirs and searches your laptop/iPod/whatever for IP contraband.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[MyNameIsEarl]

It is actually illegal for an American to buy any Cuban product anywhere. We have an embrago against them however, and no such embargo exists against Antigua, yet.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Goobermunch]

Actually, it's not even legal for a U.S. Citizen to buy a Cuban cigar.

The Office of Foreign Asset Control, the entity which enforces the embargo against Cuba, has promulgated regulations (at 31 C.F.R. Part 515) that "prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States
if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article
which is the growth, produce or manufacture of Cuba."

So keep that in mind the next time you go abroad.

--AC

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[porcupine8]

Yeah, and far fewer publishers/production companies/etc willing to take the risk of financing art because they're less able to make a return on it. Fewer people able to make a living from their art, so fewer people having time to create art. But hey, the art that does get made would be free, sweet!

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Anonymous Coward]

The point here, silly mods, is that if there are no IP rights and regulations, one person can directly copy what another person has created, with absolutely no legal repercussions. What belongs to one belongs to all, and the standard American drive to create (the desire for money), is destroyed.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[licamell]

But there's the catch...

You are not under US jurisdiction while in cuba :-)

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Digital Vomit]

It would be amazing. Science and culture would flourish like mad. The creation of art would explode, with new forms appearing at a never before seen rate. Businesses would boom with all the new opportunities. We can only hope this becomes our future one day...

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[lilomar]

You are making an assumption that producers/publishers backing is necessary to create art.

There was a time when this was at least mostly true. But now it is entirely possible for anyone to create high-quality music, photography, and (almost, we're still working on this one) movies with digital tools, and to distribute this art, along with their novels, short stories, poetry, theatrical scripts, and just about anything else you can think of, over the internet for little to nothing.

Why do you think we still need the middle-men (publishers, record companies, etc)?

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[typobox43]

You are as soon as you come home. Plus, they can just revoke your citizenship while you're gone.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[everphilski]

false, you are still a US citizen, and the embargo still applies. PDF, see heading #2

The answer is no. The Regulations prohibit persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from purchasing, transporting, importing, or otherwise dealing in or engaging in any transactions with respect to any merchandise outside the United States if such merchandise (1) is of Cuban origin; or (2) is or has been located in or transported from or through Cuba; or (3) is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce or manufacture of Cuba.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Arcane_Rhino]

But you will be when you come back.

From OFAC: Important Changes Effective June 30, 2004

Rules for family travel have changed. There is no longer a general license for travel to Cuba for family visitation. All family travel now requires a specific license from OFAC issued on or after June 30, 2004. Specific licenses for family travel issued by OFAC before that date are no longer valid. Specific licenses are granted only once every three years and allow visitation of immediate family only (parents, spouses, siblings, children, grandparents, and grandchildren). The length of stay in Cuba is limited to 14 days. Travel expenses authorized for family travelers is reduced to $50 for each day spent in Cuba and an extra $50 per trip for transportation within Cuba if needed. Family travelers may also carry one $300 quarterly remittance for immediate family in Cuba.

Cuban cigars, rum and other Cuban goods are no longer authorized for importation as accompanied baggage. Except for information and informational materials, no travelers (whether traveling legally under an OFAC license or traveling without a license) are authorized to import Cuban origin goods into the United States unless specifically licensed by OFAC to import such goods. The general license that formerly authorized licensed travelers returning from Cuba to import up to $100 worth of Cuban goods has been removed. Such goods should now be seized as imports contrary to law pursuant to 31 C.F.R. Part 515. Information and informational materials that are exempt by law to this prohibition include books, magazines, films, posters, photographs, microfilms, tapes, CDs, records, works of art, etc. (Blank tapes and CDs are not information materials and remain subject to seizure.)

The general license for travel to Cuba for amateur athletics has been removed. This travel now requires a specific license.

Fully hosted travel is no longer an exception to the embargo.

Information about the Cuba Embargo may be obtained from OFAC's fax-on-demand service at (202) 622-0077 code 1201 or our website at www.treas.gov/ofac. You may also call OFAC's Enforcement Division at (202) 622-2430.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[everphilski]

It would be amazing. Science and culture would flourish like mad. The creation of art would explode, with new forms appearing at a never before seen rate. Businesses would boom with all the new opportunities. We can only hope this becomes our future one day...

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[veganboyjosh]

i'm all about free art as much as the next /.er. the problem arises when the people making those fancy tools that allow artists and musicians to create/distribute their artwork stop getting paid. what happens when photoshop, illustrator, audition, et al, are free, and the developers stop making money? those tools stop developing at the same pace, and the artists have to either stagnate, or innovate themselves.

would be interesting, no less.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[veganboyjosh]

took me a second, but MOD PARENT FUNNY.

or insightful, it's your choice.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Anonymous Coward]

You can only lose your citizenship in the United States through one of two processes:

1. An act of congress taking it from you
2. Intentionally and voluntarily giving it up

It is extremely unlikely that congress is going to take it from you while you're gone. They can't get anything done in a reasonable time period.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[lilomar]

See my reply here.

Also, I would argue (am arguing) that the drive to create is separate from the drive for money. There would still be artists if creating art was punishable by death, it has nothing to do with making money.

The connection between creating art and becoming rich and famous was propagated by the middle men who looked at artists and said, "You know, I could really make a killing by distributing this." That is capitalism.

Now that we are in the "Digital Age" and distribution can be widespread and done by anyone, the middle-men are threatened and are reacting, sometimes by adapting to the new technology, sometimes by suing everyone in sight.

The ideal solution would be to find a way to reward artists, without restricting the distribution of art. That is the goal, remember?

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[nomadic]

You are not under US jurisdiction while in cuba :-)

Tell that to the guys stuck in Guantanamo Bay...

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Goobermunch]

But didn't the Administration argue to SCotUS that U.S. Courts had no jurisdiction over individuals in Gitmo? :-)

I realized this argument is specious, since the regulation refers to persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, rather than places subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but it'd be a fun argument to make.

--AC

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[lilomar]

At the risk of diverting this thread into yet another open source discussion, I would say that the Gimp, Audacity, etc, step in.

That is, assuming Adobe doesn't just continue to make photoshop. Why would copyright being eliminated stop them from making proprietary applications? The only reason it's so vital to the GPL is because the code is there for anyone to use, so copyright is what makes you follow the license. The code to photoshop is a closely guarded secret anyway, you never see pirated copies of photoshop source.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[poetmatt]

however illegal they try to make possession, they'd be forced to incriminate the entire public or drop IP as a result. Win win, as you can already see because you know the rules - if enough of the public finds something legal (whether it is or not), it becomes legal. Read about that somewhere, will look for references another day.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[BrainInAJar]

As long as there's teenage boys and companies that make guitars, there will be music;

As long as there's hippies that want to make a statement, there will be visual art.

So you won't have mass-market tripe and you'll need to rely on local artists when you want to see art... How is that a bad thing overall?

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[sexybomber]

Uh...

I forget which law it was in, but Congress passed a bill allowing revocation of citizenship for anybody remotely connected to "terrorism".

Technically, doesn't that satisfy the condition for process #1 above?

1. Joe Blow goes to Cuba, buys Cuban cigar.
2. Agent Smith gets wind of this heinous transgression against civilization and reports it to his superior.
3. Special Agent Jones, acting under the provision set forth in the Act of Congress I've previously mentioned, revokes Joe Blow's citizenship.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[m2943]

Yeah; it's called China. Too bad about the government, though.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that art will continue regardless of the money behind it, and that it should be that way. I disagree with the uber-parent's idea that all intellectual property (thus copyright) is worthless and should be done away with.

If I write a physics book, I should be given credit for writing that book. Someone else can come along and write another physics book, and our two books can compete on merit, but there I'm still being recognized as the copyright holder of my book. Profit comes from writing the better physics book, with the security that no one else is allowed to exactly copy my book and take my profits (copyright).

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[lilomar]

But your physics book would do the most good if it was available for anyone to use, free of charge, and easy to get. It might not benefit you as much, but it would do the most good. The goal should be to find a way to reward authors and other artists, without the need of copyright. I do not have such a solution, but if we got some top economists on it, I'm sure they could find a model that was both beneficial to the artists and the consumers (hate that word) and that didn't go against the digital grain, as it were.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[OldeTimeGeek]

We're not talking about distribution, but creation.

When it costs me nothing to do what I do (photography), then I'll feel perfectly happy to give it away without thought of compensation. Until then, please forgive me if I feel that I should actually be able to make enough money to continue doing it.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[ColdWetDog]

But not both

That's way too hard to think of.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[lilomar]

I'm not saying you shouldn't get compensated for it, I'm saying that

1. Copyright is a poor and inefficient way to do that.
2. Publishers/Producers aren't necessary for you to do that.

Not that it isn't possible that one day it will be free/extremely cheap to create as well as distribute.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[UbuntuDupe]

Also, I would argue (am arguing) that [1]the drive to create is separate from the drive for money. [2]There would still be artists if creating art was punishable by death, [3]it has nothing to do with making money.

Yes, yes, and no. Some people will create, irrespective of the monetary return. Some creations, however, need a monetary return to justify, and if a lack of IP will not allow sufficient returns, these creations simply will not exist and we will all be poorer for it.

You could just as easily say, "[1]the drive to perform science is separate from the drive for money. [2]There would still be science (in the sense of individuals acquiring knowledge through the scientific method) if science was punishable by death, [3]it has nothing to do with making money."

But it would be hard to deny that our collective scientific knowledge is significantly enhanced by the fact that intelligent people can earn a living doing it.

The connection between creating art and becoming rich and famous was propagated by the middle men who looked at artists and said, "You know, I could really make a killing by distributing this." That is capitalism.

It would also have been capitalism if the artists distributed it. The only difference is that the artists preferred the payment structure a distributor offered.

The ideal solution would be to find a way to reward artists, without restricting the distribution of art. That is the goal, remember?

Of course. But compensation models that don't require IP, can co-exist with IP. Compensation models that DO require IP, however, cannot co-exist with "no-IP". Discovering the former doesn't prove the case against IP unless it can show how it's superior in all cases.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[user]

>It would be amazing. Science and culture would flourish like mad. The creation of art would explode, with new forms appearing at a never before seen rate. Businesses would boom with all the new opportunities. We can only hope this becomes our future one day...

... and we all know how well *that* turned out: http://www.2kgames.com/bioshock/

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget which law it was in

Could it have been the law you imagined? There's definitely no "remotely connected with terrorism citizenship revocation" law. Ever heard of Jose Padilla? Still a citizen. John Walker Lindh? Still a citizen.

Not happy citizens, perhaps, but citizens.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[lilomar]

But the problem is that the IP system is broken. It does more harm to the state of art than good, therefore, the IP system we currently use needs to be gotten rid of completely and replaced by something better (unlikely) or completely revamped and slowly merged with something better (more likely).

If you don't think the IP system (more specifically, copyright, I am not nearly as familiar with patents or trademarks, although I have heard that they are in a similar situation) is broken, look at it this way, copyright seeks to encourage art by helping artists to make money with their creations, correct? (I assume you reply, "Why yes, that is the purpose of copyright.")

Then why is it that it is being used to suppress the spread of art (by preventing it from entering the PD, for an indefinate time, as long as certain corporations *cough*Disney*cough* have their way) and isn't really helping artists to make money?

Think about it, anyone who doesn't pirate art, wouldn't do it anyway if the artist just said "Please don't copy my work without paying me." Anyone who would pirate art, is going to whether copyright is there or not. Copyright has no teeth as it is, look at all the suing the RIAA/MPAA is doing, and music/movie piracy is on the rise.

Copyright is broken, it doesn't work. All it does is hinder art.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[supervillainsf]

While not entirely on topic, but since you brought up the GIMP, I think it would behoove all of us to remember that the GPL, BSD, etc. licenses all are based on copyright and IP laws. That's why we can all bitch about fun stuff like companies that don't release source when using GPL'd code in their product and the authors of said code have legal right to do something about it

I think that the id software/DOSBox thing was recent enough for many of us to remember and it appears that instead of telling the DOSBox guys to shove off, id software fixed the issue. If there was no IP issue there, id could easily told everyone where they could shove it and I doubt that many of the users of said service would care one way or another who wrote the code or anything else as long as they got to play a working version of the game.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[dwye]

> Actually, it's not even legal for a U.S. Citizen to buy a Cuban cigar.

And it's not even legal to exceed the posted speed limit, either, although driving that slowly (except at night in the rain) is a good way to cause an accident on most interstates.

My cousin lives about 1/2 hour from the border, and every so often drives to Canada and has a cigar or two. As long as someone doesn't buy them by the gross, or import them back into the USA, no one really cares.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[dwye]

> But now it is entirely possible for anyone to create > high-quality music, From what little of it that I have heard, I doubt that statement :-) > photography, and (almost, we're > still working on this one) movies with digital tools, > and to distribute this art, along with their novels, > short stories, poetry, theatrical scripts, and just > about anything else you can think of, over the > internet for little to nothing. It was always possible, and the Internet had little to do with it; the problem comes when someone wants to be able to do this and make a living at it. Without copyright, Elton John might still make a living off of his concerts, but Berny Taupin gets nothing for writing all the lyrics to EJ's best songs, Burt Bacharach has to depend on his piano playing, and so on for more obscure cases.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Hatta]

I assume buying the stuff in Antigua would be legal, but anything bought in Antigua (or on the internet from Antiguan sources) would remain illegal.

Why would you assume that? If the copy was made legally and all I'm doing is importing it, how exactly does that violate copyright law?

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Hatta]

Of course. But compensation models that don't require IP, can co-exist with IP. Compensation models that DO require IP, however, cannot co-exist with "no-IP". Discovering the former doesn't prove the case against IP unless it can show how it's superior in all cases.

Copyright is a form of government protectionism. Businesses who want to conduct business ethically by forgoeing government protectionism are at a competetive disadvantage compared to those who enjoy the protectionism. So it's really not that simple. The existance of IP makes it a lot harder for IP-free business models to succeed.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[UbuntuDupe]

Copyright is a form of government protectionism.

So are property rights. Now, explain why we should abolish them.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[Hatta]

Because, Property is robbery!

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[TheLink]

I use Audacity only because it's free and good enough for what I'm using it for.

It's not what I'd call good at all.

For instance if you record something, and the power fails, you don't just risk losing the last few secs of the recording, you risk losing more.

Sure you can write a program to splice the data back (which I did), but it's silly to have to do that.

At one point of time a "new version" (1.2.x) couldn't even record much more than 40+ minutes on some systems due to some silly bug, took them a while to fix it, meanwhile the 1.0.x worked. Makes me afraid of even looking at the source code :).

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[TheLink]

Uh you won't have to rely on local artists to see art or listen to their music. You could get it from the artist's website/blog directly.

You might even buy stuff. Not much but hey not like most musicians get much money from labels anyway (I hear typically they get a big _advance_ and recording fees, promotion etc get deducted from it, so depending on how they're screwed they might even end up owing the label).

The reason why there's lots of mass-market tripe is because the media industry long ago figured out that what makes something popular isn't mainly quality. Sure it usually has to be of at least a certain level of quality, but after that it's exposure (you won't know something is good if nobody knows of it). And you'd listen to/watch stuff your friends listen to/watch. A bit like a weak network effect. Or stronger network effect if you're talking about the teen market. Only prob is a different sort of network effect appeared aka P2P ;).

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[lilomar]

Slight difference...There isn't any law preventing me from making a copy of my computer and giving it to my friend.

Comparing copyright to the right to private property just muddies the waters without actually proving anything. It's just a bad analogy, ok? Stop using it.

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[UbuntuDupe]

So it *is* a form of government protectionism when the government bans you from copying something of mine, but it's NOT a form of government protectionism when the government bans you from stealing something of mine.

I think that's a great analogy, since it shows the circularity of your claim. "But physical property theft is different because I don't like that!"

Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming

[lilomar]

I'm sorry, you misunderstood, that it's a form of government protectionism isn't what makes it inherently bad. It's what makes it incompatible with other forms of paying artists.

Copyright is a form of government protectionism. ... So it's really not that simple. The existance of IP makes it a lot harder for IP-free business models to succeed.

No way...

[Otter]

The game may be to get Hollywood and Microsoft, et al., to pressure Washington to cut a deal. But their influence may not be sufficient to move lawmakers on the question of online gambling.

No freaking way is Congress going to abandon all US copyrights over online poker. But if it did happen, which it won't, that would certainly put the lie to all of your paranoid raving about the M$AA controlling the government, no?

Re:No way...

[Lemmy Caution]

If someone said that the MPAA, RIAA or BSA "controlled" the government, I'd call that wacky paranoid raving.

But whatever the outcome of this case, I think it's a very reasonable proposition that those organizations wield an extensive and disproportionate influence over US policy, often against the best interests of the public at large.

Re:No way...

[Jaysyn]

So if it doesn't happen does that give the statement that the MPAA is controlling the government credibility? No? Makes as much sense as what you just said!

Re:No way...

[Mr. Underbridge]

No freaking way is Congress going to abandon all US copyrights over online poker. But if it did happen, which it won't, that would certainly put the lie to all of your paranoid raving about the M$AA controlling the government, no?

OK. So either I get cheap-ass bootleg media, or legal online poker. Awesome!

Re:No way...

[morgan_greywolf]

Maybe. It's a question of which special interest group will Congress bow to -- the U.S. casino industry or the MAFIAA and the BSA?

You're right, though, my money's on the MAFIAA.

Re:No way...

[Orange Crush]

I dunno . . . when you bring Vegas into the equation, you're now involved in something that is a vested interest of the *actual* Mafia. That'll be a neat conflict to watch.

Re:No way...

[click2005]

I can just imagine the headlines.. "Steve Balmer suspected of a drive-by chairing"

Re:No way...

[morgan_greywolf]

The Mafia don't use drive-by shootings. That's for the gangs. Nope, the mob prefers it nice, clean, accurate and no witnesses.

Re:No way...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesn't care about clean. :)

Re:No way...

[Otter]

Makes as much sense as what you just said!

Ummm, no. The truth of a proposition and the truth of its inverse are unrelated.

Oh hell yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Pirate Bay! You just got your island!

Re:Oh hell yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey Pirate Bay! You just got your island!"

But in the USA it won't matter because the cable monopolies will throttle your bit-torrent downloads and prevent you from seeding. (Or so goes the claims in that recent slashdot article). And Cisco will bring back all their expertise from The Great Firewall of China and wall of the USA in order to protect us from "terrorists" online. USA is doomed... Okay I hope I'm wrong about all of these predictions BTW.

Re:Oh hell yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"But it's too hot in the winter for glög, there are no herring in the sea for Christmas dinner, and what is this 'cricket' thing?"

(goes back to watch pirated copies of Fanny och Alexander)

May Be Allowed? I think not...

[TopShelf]

Just because the lawyer representing Antigua has requested this method of penalizing the US for violating WTO rulings doesn't mean the WTO would actually allow it. I don't recall anything in that article that even hints at the WTO following that line of reasoning.

You Have NO Rights: +1, Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the United States of America.

Patriotically From Alphane,
Kilgore Trout

And we care...why?

[fenodyree]

Fry: "What do we care? We live in the United States."
Leela: "The United States is part of the world."
Fry: "Wow, I have been gone a long time."

Thankfully, that is a transcript from the future, and America is not yet part of this "world" of which the UN speaks of

Re:And we care...why?

[Anonymous Coward]

on the other hand: other countries are leaving this "world" and becoming outskirts of this "United States"

Re:And we care...why?

[shutdown -p now]

I believe in this case the Antiguans would very much appreciate if you did not care. It all started with the US messing with them, after all.

Re:And we care...why?

[jez9999]

The US has an enormous trade deficit, meaning that you are very much part of this 'world' thing, especially when it comes to trade. If you cut yourselves off, you'd notice very fast.

Burden of the Remedy

[PPH]

This is odd. It will be placing the burden of the remedy for US law on private entities. Congress passed laws prohibiting offshore gambling. So why must Hollywood and Microsoft (and other IP owners) bear the burden of WTOs remedy?

This is setting a bad precedent. Such remedies should be designed so as to place the burden on the groups found to be violating laws or regulations to the greatest extent possible. Searching for the deepest pockets isn't justice.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[bigdavex]

This is setting a bad precedent. Such remedies should be designed so as to place the burden on the groups found to be violating laws or regulations to the greatest extent possible. Searching for the deepest pockets isn't justice.

So, take it out of the salary of the Congress and the President?

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[Pig Hogger]

This is odd. It will be placing the burden of the remedy for US law on private entities. Congress passed laws prohibiting offshore gambling. So why must Hollywood and Microsoft (and other IP owners) bear the burden of WTOs remedy?

Congratulations! You have found the problem with the WTO and all those supragovernmental private organizations that purport to rule the world without any sort of democratic oversight.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that the laws Congress passed were bought by both Hollywood, Microsoft and others. Its not like Congress is some benevolent entity that acts in the interest of the people. Laws go to the highest bidder.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is setting a bad precedent"
No, this is not setting a precedent of any kind.
This would be in line with precedents previously set.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[Red Flayer]

This is odd. It will be placing the burden of the remedy for US law on private entities.

And how is that any different from any trade agreement? Private companies are affected by trade sanctions, quotas, and subsidies all over the world.

Hollywood and Microsoft benefit from the trade treaties that ensure recognition of US law overseas wrt IP. Under the treaties that govern the WTO, those beneficial to HW/MS treaties are no longer enforceable since the US refuses to fulfill its end of the bargain wrt a treaty it signed.

What you are saying is, why should HW and MS be punished by international legal reaction to US treaty violation?

The flip side of that coin is, why should HW and MS be rewarded by US treaties? Hollywood and Microsoft reap the rewards of US treaties, why should they not have some of that reward taken away when the US breaks those treaties?

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is odd. It will be placing the burden of the remedy for US law on private entities. Congress passed laws prohibiting offshore gambling. So why must Hollywood and Microsoft (and other IP owners) bear the burden of WTOs remedy?

If the **AA don't like it, they can certainly lobby government to change the online gambling laws.

Wait, lobbying got the US in the mess to begin with. Hmm.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[PPH]

The flip side of that coin is, why should HW and MS be rewarded by US treaties? Hollywood and Microsoft reap the rewards of US treaties, why should they not have some of that reward taken away when the US breaks those treaties?

These aren't the only outfits that benefit from treaties. What about Boeing or Caterpillar? I don't see the WTO authorizing Antigua to steal airplanes.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... why should HW and MS be punished by international legal reaction to US treaty violation?

And a possible answer is "Hollywood IS Vegas". The major casinos are part of the same entertainment conglomerates as the major studios.

Doesn't help Microsoft, of course.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god... I agree with Pig Hogger...

The sky is falling, the world is at its end.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[Anonymous Coward]

The group violating the regulations is the United States of America. The proposed penalty is against the United States of America. What was your problem again?

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[ebcdic]

Where big companies are concerned, who cares about justice? It only matters for individuals. I suggest selling your Disney shares now.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[The Real Andrew]

These aren't the only outfits that benefit from treaties. What about Boeing or Caterpillar? I don't see the WTO authorizing Antigua to steal airplanes.

But I imagine they would be allowed to download the plans to the new Boeing 777, make their own copies and then sell them.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[Red Flayer]

Theft of physical property is not covered by trade treaty, and the WTO court has no jurisdiction over non-trade treaties.

US IP rights can be restricted by the WTO, since they exist in other countries only because of trade treaty.

Legally, there is a difference between physical property rights and IP rights, since one has been historically regarded as universal, and there is worldwide debate about the existence and importance of the other.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[ceoyoyo]

In the rest of the world we usually regard the citizens of a democratic country as being responsible for the actions of their freely elected government, as well as for their corporations.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[PPH]

Legally, there is a difference between physical property rights and IP rights, since one has been historically regarded as universal,

Not as universal as you'd expect. Don't forget Karl Marx and his contemporaries like Lenin, Castro and Hugo Chávez. Seizing real property can and has been done. The primary problem, from a equitable point of view, is that the people whose property gets seized happen to be those whose property is most easily grabbed. Not necessarily that of the guilty parties.

The article mentions the fact that the WTO expects IP property owners to lean on the US government in order to get the desired change in legislation. That's blackmail, pure and simple.

If the WTO really wants to stick it to the US government and at the same time not penalize individual property owners or businesses, they could do something like suspend enforcement of tax treaties giving the US the rights to impose unitary taxes. That would get Congress squealing like a stuck pig in no time.

and there is worldwide debate about the existence and importance of the other.

That's a separate issue. If, after this is all over and the WTO and Antigua get satisfaction in the form of suitable legislative changes, would you support the return of said IP to its rightful owners? That begs the question of whether such IP even exists in the eyes of the world at large. I'm afraid such an outcome will just provide evidence supporting its legitimacy. If it doesn't exist, it can't be confiscated or handed over as settlement for damages.

Re:Burden of the Remedy

[PPH]

But I imagine they would be allowed to download the plans to the new Boeing 777, make their own copies and then sell them.

The plans to a Boeing 777 are worth practically zero. Sure, you could sell them. But the owners would be incapable of flying them, as they would not have certificates of airworthiness. The FAA and its equivalent foreign regulatory bodies won't issue one to just any manufacturer until they have obtained certification for their engineering, manufacturing and support processes.

There's an interesting court case about the theft of documents from Boeing going on right now. The a company official claimed that the cost to the company due to this theft was between 5 and 15 billion dollars. In reality, nobody could build anything of value from the small subset of QA data involved. What those numbers represent is the possible cost of their falling into the hands of federal regulators and the subsequent fines (either 5 billion or triple damages for RICO penalties).

Yeah, I know this is off-topic. But its an interesting view of IP nevertheless.

Re:May Be Allowed? I think not...

[Lemmy Caution]

Then you didn't finish the article, including the fact that Ecuador was, at one point, granted just this sort of relief. Ecuador chose not to exercise their right to ignore US intellectual property claims, and instead used it as leverage in trade negotiations.

What do the hope to win?

[pokerdad]

Considering the US has a long history of not complying with WTO rulings that don't suit them, I am surprised that they would even try this method; even if the WTO were to rule in their favour, they know all too well that the WTO is all bark and no bite.

Re:What do the hope to win?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Considering the US has a long history of not complying with WTO rulings that don't suit them, I am surprised that they would even try this method"

That's the beauty of the lawyers request, it's not a case of whether the US will comply or not comply with the ruling because unlike money or physical goods, the Antiguans would be able to take and use the IP for their benefit without any help from the US.

Re:What do the hope to win?

[griffjon]

...when applied to the US. The WTO has quite a lot of bite with most developing nations. Just clarifying your statement.

Re:What do the hope to win?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like what? I'm serious. Not being American, I don't know exactly what conflicts the US and WTO have been involved in. I'm familiar with the famous softwood lumber case between Canada and the US. The WTO found that the US was violating trade law and forced them to remove tariffs. Four years later, the tariffs were gone.

I believe the WTO is sometimes slow. Countries stall, they go to arbitration, they negotiate, and things drag on for years and years (as in the softwood lumber case). But, from what I've seen, the WTO eventually wins (as in the softwood lumber case). Do you have an example where the the US out and out ignored the WTO?

Re:What do the hope to win?

[anaesthetica]

Considering the US has a long history of not complying with WTO rulings that don't suit them

Considering that the WTO has only been in existence for about 12 years, "a long history" seems like a bit of hyperbole from you.

Watch the Blackhole!

[redelm]

Yes, Antigua can get the compensation. Watch the US then blackhole the whole country. No traffic passed through US territory or assets of US taxpayers. Maybe only by Disney applying to Federal Court for an injunction. Not even a GEC (Cuba-level embargo) would be needed.

Of course, this won't much stop satellite to the EU but smuggling is a serious offense and the US could easily put anyone involved in "facilitation" on watchlists (arrest on sight).

WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

WTO wont give a blanket permission to Antigua to violate American copyrights. As long as the dispute is between US Govt and US Gambling industry using Antigua as a cats paw, others will shrug and look the other way. Let them mess with Big Name US corporations and Hollywood the US Govt will come down on them like a ton of bricks and choke the tiny country off. Simple things like issuing a travel advisory against visiting Antigua will kill their tourism. Small amount of grit in the financial sector could harm their trade. It will be suicide for Antigua to allow the dispute to escalate. I am very sure some low level U.S. diplomats are explaining to the Hotel and Tourism minister of Antigua what bad things could happen if the law suite against USA is allowed to proceed any further. Expect the issue to die a quiet death in the coming years.

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[moderatorrater]

That's right. Worldwide support for the US has never been so high; were Antigua to incur the wrath of America, the EU and Asian countries would just back off and completely ignore Antigua. The US is the world leader in these things, right?

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

US never bothered about whether or not rest of the world agrees with it or respects. The real fight is between U.S. gambling industry using the anti-gambling religious conservatives to make Washington write laws banning internet gambling and other such competition. The internet gambling interest is using Antigua as a cats paw in the WTO. It is really these two fighting. As long as these hoodlums keep the fight among themselves, the cops will stay out of it, and they can sort it out among themselves. If the fight threatens to spill over in to the nicer neighborhoods, the cops will be sent in.

Will it make US look more like a bully? yeah, sure. But Washington does not care. Frankly, not acting like a bully is highly over rated. For example, one large country that is very much preoccupied with world opinion and trying not to look like a bully is India. What did it get? Tiny, two bit countries like Bangaladesh and Pakistan are taking pot shots at it, routinely kidnapping its border police, and sending in terrorists to fight a proxy war. So to a certain extent, Washington's "I dont care what you think of us" attitude is justified. It might over do it and stick it to some who might help us. But world opinion, all by itself, is not worth much.

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[Pig Hogger]

Simple things like issuing a travel advisory against visiting Antigua will kill their tourism. Small amount of grit in the financial sector could harm their trade.

Just like the US embargo against Cuba is hurting their tourist trade, eh????

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[A nonymous Coward]

And even if those traitors in the EU and Asia don't back us up, our allies Israel and Iraq and ... uh, Israel and Iraq will back us up with their mighty tourist dollars ... uhh ... shekels and dinars.

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[clodney]

While I can't cite any statistics, I can say with near certainty that the US embargo against Cuba is dramatically affecting their tourist trade.

Do the math. The largest economy in the world, with a population of over 300 million, many of whom live in a climate where it is cold and snowy for 4-6 months of the year, many of whom like to vacation in warm climes. IIRC, Cuba is something like 90 miles away from Florida, so it is closer than most of the Caribbean vacation destinations.

People flock in huge numbers to Florida, Mexico, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc. Why would they not go to Cuba if the choice were available, and the price was right?

Take away the embargo and I'd be willing to bet Cuban tourism more than doubles.

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[demigod]

People flock in huge numbers to Florida, Mexico, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc. Why would they not go to Cuba if the choice were available, and the price was right?

I think you meant to say "Americans flock in huge numbers to ...".

And that my friend is why Cuba is such a popular destination for the rest of the world. No flocks of Americans.

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[clodney]

Actually people flock in huge numbers is correct, but I will concede that Americans are far and away the largest subset of those people.

But I think the point still holds. Even if the Europeans and Canadians get disgusted with flocks of Americans and go away, flock of Americans, is still, well, flocks.

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[wamatt]

Makes one wonder why TBP Allofmp3 etc don't host servers in Cuba. Allofmp3 is incurring pressure indirectly from the WTO.

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[Anonymous Coward]

The population of Canada is slightly less than the population of the Tokyo metropolitan area. I don't think they offset American tourism much.

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I just don't see Cuba as being worth the price of a plane ticket. The rest of the world can have it. ALL of it.

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are right, the U.S. does not care about world opinion. But this is not a case of world opinion, it is a case of WTO rules. According to an article I read in The Register a while ago, the WTO dispute process allows something like a class action lawsuit - other countries also affected by the dispute can join in and be included in the remedy. This means that if Antigua gets a favourable ruling, other entities with online gambling industries (like the EU) will join in on the fun. Heck, some countries might be tempted to create an online gambling industry just for the occasion.

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[clickety6]

Yeah, nobody wants to go on holiday with a bunch of flocking Americans ;-)

Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate.

[ceoyoyo]

Cuban tourism is doing just fine. I know several people who have or are planning to visit soon because they're afraid when Castro dies the US will drop the embargo and the place will be flooded with Americans.

I don't think the US is quite as powerful as you think. If it is, it definitely needs to be knocked down a few pegs.

AllofMP3.com and ThePirateBay

[Maximum Prophet]

"Think of this from the W.T.O.'s point of view," said Charles R. Nesson, a professor at Harvard Law School. "They're this fledgling organization dominated by a huge monster in the United States. People there must be scared out of their wits at the prospects of enforcing a ruling that would instantly galvanize public opinion in the United States against the W.T.O."

True, but if Antigua sets up the equivalent of allofmp3.com and ThePirateBay, with legitamate sounding names, is the real "Public Opinion" going to turn against them, or strongly for them?

Re:AllofMP3.com and ThePirateBay

[uab21]

True, but if Antigua sets up the equivalent of allofmp3.com and ThePirateBay, with legitamate sounding names, is the real "Public Opinion" going to turn against them, or strongly for them?

By 'allowing to violate copyright' does that give them carte blanche to distribute said content outside their borders?

Re:AllofMP3.com and ThePirateBay

[hypnagogue]

By 'allowing to violate copyright' does that give them carte blanche to distribute said content outside their borders?

That's exactly what it means. "Disney, et al, to get hijacked by the pirates of the Caribbean." That's ever so much more ironic than rain on your wedding day.

Re:AllofMP3.com and ThePirateBay

[Maximum Prophet]

According the the New York Times, the population of Anitgua is 69,100. Since they'd have to buy at least one copy of everything, I'd say that the administration would have no problem with 69,000 people making copies of music, movies and books. There are public libraries that serve more people than that. What has them scared would be if Antigua were allowed to distribute "legal" copies. Even if the US were to stop all those copies at their borders, if the rest of the world bought all of it's American music, movies and books from Antigua, it would disrupt the US enconomy to no end.

Re:AllofMP3.com and ThePirateBay

[Anonymous Coward]

Public opinion will turn strongly toward them. The trouble is, American nukes would as well...

Re:AllofMP3.com and ThePirateBay

[Maximum Prophet]

This is from an article on Ecuador http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/imf/ ecuador/txt/2000/0518bananas_redux.txt:

In response, EU envoy Roderick Abbott said it would be extremely difficult to establish a clear value of any sanctions taken against services or items otherwise covered under the WTO's intellectual property accords, or TRIPS. If Ecuador took such measures, Brussels would monitor their effect carefully and, he indicated, could bring a counter-complaint to the WTO if it appeared they were costing the EU more than the approved $201.6 million.

So I imagine the Antigua would be able to violate copyright on 3.4 billion worth of stuff. If the RIAA and MPAA have their way, that would be about 22666 movies or songs, if the WTO has a more reasonable outlook, that would be 34 billion songs, or 3.4 billion movies.

Re:AllofMP3.com and ThePirateBay

[Quila]

So I imagine the Antigua would be able to violate copyright on 3.4 billion worth of stuff. If the RIAA and MPAA have their way

The way the MAFIAA has been in the past with judgments against them, I suspect they'd send Antigua 340 million copies of Pat Boone's Greatest Hits "valued" at $10 each and call it even.

Re:AllofMP3.com and ThePirateBay

[deftcoder]

Well, TPB doesn't actually distribute content, but allofmp3 does.

One (failed) way of escape

[Daimanta]

Washington responded to Antigua's complaint by claiming it was within its rights to seek to block online gambling on moral grounds, just as any Muslim country would be within its rights under international trade agreements to ban the import of alcoholic beverages. The W.T.O. rejected this argument as inconsistent with American policy. The U.S. is pulling on straws, they know they are not going to win this one. They will likely prefer the least evil option

Re:One (failed) way of escape

[Maximum Prophet]

They will likely prefer the least evil option

What planet are you living on? Given the current administration's history, they will choose the most evil option. Something like blockaiding Antigua until they submit. Come to think of it, an internet blockaide wouldn't be too hard to implement, just cut all the lines leaving the island. Shoot down any satelites that carry their transmittions, and they'll quicky surrender.

Backstory

[Kadin2048]

The U.S. banned international online gambling because of pressure (read: bribes) from the big domestic casinos. Mainly the Indian tribes and the Vegas / Atlantic City ones. Probably the state lotteries, too.

They made it into a "moral issue," but that's just bullshit that they can sell to a few Evangelical hicks. The real issue was that the casinos felt that international companies were cutting into their business, so they had Congress close it down. It was pretty straightforward protectionism; online betting with U.S.-based B&M casinos (including internet off-track betting on horses, internet purchase of lottery tickets, etc.) is OK, but international ones are not.

The WTO saw this for what it is, and is basically saying, 'either you let everyone compete, or you shut it all down.' So this puts the U.S. in the position of either letting international casinos into the U.S. market, or shutting down all internet gambling (including aforementioned web-based off-track-betting, lottery tickets, sports books, etc.). The casinos -- particularly the Vegas ones -- wouldn't like that much either.

So it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I have to give the Antiguans -- and most of all, their lawyer (who is from Texas) -- credit. It takes some brass ones to go eye-to-eye with the USG, even when they're doing something that's so transparently corrupt. I hope they can pull it off.

Re:Backstory

[PadRacerExtreme]

The U.S. banned international online gambling because of pressure (read: bribes) from the big domestic casinos
lobbying == bribing? Awful cynical there, aren't you?

Re:Backstory

[jaffray]

The U.S. banned international online gambling because of pressure (read: bribes) from the big domestic casinos.

Why does misinformation like this keep getting modded up as informative? It happens every time the online gambling issue comes up on Slashdot.

The American Gaming Association, the industry group representing those big domestic casinos, opposed legislation banning online gambling. See:

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/5/american-gami ng-association-study.htm
http://www.americangaming.org/hillupdate/reports_d etail.cfv?id=9

They want legalization and regulation, so they can get a piece of the pie. They're currently supporting legislation requiring a "study" of online gambling, as a preliminary to repealing the ban.

Right now online gambling is a booming international industry, but American companies can't reap any of the profits, despite what should be a very strong competitive position with their strong brands. The potential gain of locking in American gamblers to land-based casinos is negligible by comparison.

They made it into a "moral issue," but that's just bullshit that they can sell to a few Evangelical hicks.

That's not the cover story - it's the whole story. Banning online gambling has been a plank of the Republican Party platform since at least 2004:

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf (see page 57)

The most recent anti-online-gambling law, the Unlawful Online Gambling Enforcement Act, was railroaded through the Senate (as a last-minute amendment to a must-pass bill) by Bill Frist. Bill Frist, at the time, was a hopeful for the Republican presidential nomination, and as such needed to shore up support among the moral conservative types.

Re:Backstory

[timster]

That's not cynical at all; it's just a fact. When I write a letter to my Congressman (Burgess, an administration stooge), that's not called lobbying; it's maybe "petitioning" or "wasting ink" if you prefer. If there's a campaign contribution attached, or some kind of expensive perk, that's lobbying. Since lobbying makes use of material rewards to help get the message across, it's merely a legal form of bribery.

Re:Backstory

[Xonstantine]

The most recent anti-online-gambling law, the Unlawful Online Gambling Enforcement Act, was railroaded through the Senate (as a last-minute amendment to a must-pass bill) by Bill Frist. Bill Frist, at the time, was a hopeful for the Republican presidential nomination, and as such needed to shore up support among the moral conservative types. From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109 -4411:

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.

(emphasis in the original)

Re:Backstory

[Joe The Dragon]

That is not true the Indian tribes and the Vegas / Atlantic City want to open there own on line casinos.

Re:Backstory

[sulliva]

The UIGEA (Internet, not Online) was signed into law by George W. Bush on October 13, 2006. This is a law. My shutdown Neteller and numerous poker accounts serve as proof enough to me. I hope Antigua takes our government to the cleaners on this. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it. Give it a brand name that unskilled players recognize so I can take their money. All the small fish are gone, and us bigger fish have to feed on each other to survive. Like Mumble in Happy Feet, I just want my fish back.

Re:Backstory

[Xonstantine]

UIGEA might be law, but it's important to see what the law says:

Title VIII of the Act is also known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. This title (found at 31 U.S.C. 5361-5367) prohibits the transfer of funds from a financial institution to an Internet gambling site, with the notable exceptions of "fantasy" sports, online lotteries, and horse/harness racing.

Very simply, internet or online gambling is NOT illegal (provided, you aren't wagering on sports, which would be covered under existing law). This applies to financial institutions, not the individual. Yes it makes it more difficult, but certainly not impossible, and definitely not illegal for the individual, at least at the Federal level.

Re:Backstory

[gb506]

That's not cynical at all; it's just a fact. When I write a letter to my Congressman (Burgess, an administration stooge), that's not called lobbying; it's maybe "petitioning" or "wasting ink" if you prefer. If there's a campaign contribution attached, or some kind of expensive perk, that's lobbying. Since lobbying makes use of material rewards to help get the message across, it's merely a legal form of bribery.

Having used lobbyists on the state and federal level, I can tell you that money or perks do not necessarily (or even normally) have to change hands in order for the effort to succeed. Lobbying is about getting ACCESS to the decision maker in order to present your point of view. The most effective lobbying efforts are not the ones that spread the most cash around, they're the ones headed up by the people (lobbyists) who happen to have the tightest relationships with the decision makers.

Re:Backstory

[Best ID Ever!]

While the UIGEA didn't make online gambling illegal, the intent is still the same and it has had a chilling effect. Banks didn't do an in-depth analysis of state and federal gambling laws -- they just stopped doing EFTs and credit card deposits to online gambling companies altogether.

Re:Backstory

[Xonstantine]

I hear what you are saying. They've certainly made it a lot more difficult and expensive (routing through offshore 3rd parties that take a 10% cut, for example)...but not impossible, as this new fish can attest to.

Re:Backstory

[bigdavex]

Yeah, but hr49543 did pass with similar language as part of the port security bill.

Re:Backstory

[jratcliffe]

A few definitions:

*Lobbying: when someone I don't agree with attempts to influence Congress.
*Activism: when someone I agree with attempts to influence Congress.

*Citizen participation: when I make a contribution to support a political candidate.
*Bribery: when someone I disagree with makes a contribution to support a political candidate.

Re:Backstory

[SIIHP]

That's not the law he's talking about.

The law he's talking about is the UIGEA, which was signed into law.

Re:Backstory

[mre5565]

> They made it into a "moral issue," but that's just bullshit that they can sell to a few Evangelical hicks.

That's not the cover story - it's the whole story.

Not at all. The reason the WTO has ruled against the USA is that it allows online gaming for Keno and horse race betting.

Re:Backstory

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Yes but bribery implies a strong responsibility to follow through with what you're being paid to do. Lobbying is about supporting the candidate who shares your views, so that he has a slight advantage over other candidates (i.e. that he can advertise more and pull more promotional stunts). You're not actually paying the congressman to do anything, except basically what the guy is doing anyway. It would probably be more accurate to say lobbying==tipping.

Re:Backstory

[yuna49]

So this puts the U.S. in the position of either letting international casinos into the U.S. market, or shutting down all internet gambling (including aforementioned web-based off-track-betting, lottery tickets, sports books, etc.). The casinos -- particularly the Vegas ones -- wouldn't like that much either.

I suspect a strict interpretation of the ruling would also ban other wire-based interstate gambling operations like betting on horse races at out-of-town tracks. A lot of the gambling rules involve the "wire" since they were originally intended to prohibit telephone-based bookie operations.

correction

[XdevXnull]

It's not a "violation" of anything if it's all officially sanctioned. Just another way of redistributing copyrights to the people of Antigua.

Re:correction

[EVil Lawyer]

It's a violation of ** US ** Copyright law. Antigua and the WTO can't say what is or is not a violation of US law. They are not "official sanctioners" of US law.

Re:correction

[SLi]

You cannot violate US copyright law if you have no ties to the US. Just like you don't usually say you violate Chinese laws while you have nothing to do with China.

Re:correction

[EVil Lawyer]

You are assuming what is the point of much contention among modern legal scholars of intellectual property law. Many strongly disagree with you.

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Government Intellegence indicates WMD hidden in Antequa. Marines sent to investigate.

Fixed that for ya.

If real intelligence were being used, we'd never have this problem in the first place.

Everybody....

[Kildjean]

lets move to antigua... i bet you guys TPB will move their hq's over there....

China

[Duncan3]

China does this a billion times a day at least, and no one cares about that, why should a little copyright violation in a small country bother anyone?

Re:China

[Deagol]

Because the US companies do not want to loose access to the most lucrative money making opportunities in history, with China being the world's largest consumer market and all. Never mind the fact that if the media giants went Rambo on China to stop piracy, China would likely ban them from access to the Olympics they'll be having soon.

In short, China has much more financial clout to bully the US with than most any other nation. I just wish they'd stop talking out of their asses and start selling those US dollars they're holding over our heads. I'd love to see China put some serious fiscal hurt on us, as we'd deserve every bit of it. There's a big portion of the world's population who can buy cheap, shoddy goods from China, apart from the US. Sure, Wal Mart might hurt, but the rest of the world would benefit.

Re:China

[VJ42]

China does this a billion times a day at least, and no one cares about that, why should a little copyright violation in a small country bother anyone? Because this time it would be legal. If it happens, someone will set up a company in Antigua selling Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek and other franchises much cheaper than Hollywood ever would or even could. We'll (via companies around the world outside the USA*) all buy our DVDs\CDs etc. from Antigua, and the **AA will lose a lot of money.

*the usa will probably make it illegal to import media from Antigua

Re:China

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

I'd love to see China put some serious fiscal hurt on us, as we'd deserve every bit of it.
Instead of making assine statements on the internet, perhaps you would be better served ending your life, quickly and in a carbon neutral way.

Re:China

[n dot l]

I'd love to see China put some serious fiscal hurt on us... If you're thinking is that some fiscal hurt would probably strengthen the USA's domestic economy, then I agree - though one should be careful with the word some. A slow increase in foreign labor costs which leads to a gradual return of industry to the USA would be a good thing. But what you're proposing is, at best, suicide.

China holds enough US debt to, in very real terms, make the US dollar worth less than the paper it's printed on. This would pretty much instantaneously destroy America's ability to buy from anyone. How much of that precious oil of yours do you produce domestically, anyway? Can you really imagine living in the USA when shipping costs alone drive the price of food well above what most people can afford to pay? Don't forget that less trade means fewer jobs too - so even more people are going to starve.

If you're thinking of some sort of revolution - let me assure, the kind with masses of half-starved citizens rioting in the streets is the bad kind. Go study the French Revolution and count the number of people that lost their heads - yes, you too could be like them!

And don't think the rest of the world would pitch in to help you out. Ignoring the fact that the USA's pissed a large portion of the world off you still face the issue that the end of US trade would lead to severe recessions in most other industrialized nations as well - foreigners would be too busy saving themselves to help you.

The only countries to really benefit from US collapse, really, are Russia and China - the former because Europe would give them whatever they ask for in exchange for cheap oil, and the latter because their Asian neighbors would do the same.

And that's all assuming World War III doesn't break out at some point in all the chaos.

...as we'd deserve every bit of it. Then again, maybe you're just suicidal, after all.

But do yourself a favor and drop the illusion of this helping the rest of the world or being righteous in any way. We're talking about a minimum of 10 years of worldwide recession here - that's a lot of starving people. If you want to help the rest of the world out, get rid of the trade deficit and produce something that all those foreigners holding onto US dollars can buy. The US crumbling into pieces doesn't help anyone.

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

Antigua's nuclear arsenal is a tad smaller?

Re:China

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Sorry that was supposed to be asinine, as in the following quoted statement is asinine, " I'd love to see China put some serious fiscal hurt on us, as we'd deserve every bit of it." I see my calling the parent poster out on making such a statement is modded as troll, however the post I quoted calling for serious fiscal hurt on the US isn't marked as troll, keep up the good work moderators.

Is Antiqua independant? Is it a WTO signatory?

[Iowan41]

If it is independent, or not a signatory, how can they be accused of "breaking the law"? If a signatory, yet still independent, then they might be guilty of a treaty violation, but again, not of breaking the law.

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[Spy der Mann]

This is just what I had in mind after reading the article, YARRRR!!

Re:MOD PARENT UP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the mod would be what? +1 Blindingly-obvious-and-uninteresting?

Another reason.

[raehl]

It's not that simple.

Online gambling has been banned in the US for years by the same laws that made it illegal to wager over the phone. So there were never any domestic online gambling companies, because the US would just arrest the people running them for violating existing law.

But, the US couldn't get at people who ran online gambling companies outside the country, and while the US could have technically prosecuted individual gamblers for gambling online, that would hardly be practical. So instead, the US recently made it illegal for US banks and credit card companies to process payments to online gambling companies, effectively preventing US citizens from gambling online since it's now much harder to get your money to the gambling site.

The trick here is that the law only applies to certain kinds of online gambling, specifically, the kind of online gambling common in casinos, as it was mainly the casinos pushing for this legislation (under the guise of 'gambling is evil!'). So, the US had a situation in which certain domestic companies could engage in gambling as a trade, but certain international companies could not - and that's the basis of the WTO dispute.

The US actually has a very similar construct with regard to free trade amongst the 50 US states - it isn't legal for any state to have laws which favor domestic commerce over commerce from parties in other states. For example, in a recent ruling, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that banned companies from directly shipping alcoholic beverages to customers from out of state while allowing domestic producers to do so. Supreme Court said you had to either ban all mail-order alcohol sales or none.

And that's what the WTO is saying. The US is free to ban gambling, so long as they ban ALL gambling, not just gambling done by companies outside the country. And the US would be free to tax gambling, so long as it taxes ALL gambling. So the problem isn't that the US isn't getting a piece - they could allow gambling and tax it and get a piece. The problem is that because of the existing ban on online wagering that pit US casinos against non-US online gaming sites, the US companies were losing business to the non-US companies, so the US banned gambling at the non-US companies, which is exactly the kind of practice the free trade pacts and the WTO are supposed to prevent.

Re:Another reason.

[terrymr]

There are very serious legal questions as to whether current law prohibits casino style gambling over the internet at all. Theres already a appeals court ruling (which the supremes declined to review saying that the wire act only applies to sports betting over the telephone and the new law past last year did not redefine illegal gambling. That's at a federal level anyway.

Many states have taken the view that all gambling is illegal unless specificly authorized by the state - this leads to questions of interstate regulation and the fact that the states are also bound by the WTO treaties. Indeed according to the treaty that established the USA's membership of the WTO, the feds are required to withold all federal funding from states which are not in compliance with the WTO rules.

Re:Another reason.

[whoever57]

And that's what the WTO is saying. The US is free to ban gambling, so long as they ban ALL gambling, not just gambling done by companies outside the country. And the US would be free to tax gambling, so long as it taxes ALL gambling. So the problem isn't that the US isn't getting a piece - they could allow gambling and tax it and get a piece.

The problem for the US is how to collect the taxes. The US can't tax no-resident corporations. One way might be to have US residents report their gambling activities in their annual tax filings and pay the tax, but look at how well that approach works for states that demand "use" taxes for inter-state puchases.


There is a secondary problem -- what about those people that the US has thrown in jail for running offshore Internet gambling operations. What happens to them if the US decides that Internet gambling is legal? Could they sue on the basis that Internet gambling is currently legal because of the US's treaty obligations (the WTO treaties) and thus their convictions were wrong?

Re:Another reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

The day that happens is the day that we find out what a state can really do.

Re:Another reason.

[LionMage]

Online gambling has been banned in the US for years by the same laws that made it illegal to wager over the phone. So there were never any domestic online gambling companies, because the US would just arrest the people running them for violating existing law.

Odd, since I'm not sure how this squares with TFA, in which it is explicitly claimed that there are legal avenues for domestic businesses to conduct online gambling -- specific cited examples are off-track betting on horse races, purchase of lottery tickets, etc. Not exactly saying you're wrong, just saying that the NYT has pretty good fact-checking on its articles, and if they say that online gambling is not illegal for companies to conduct within the U.S. (subject to certain restrictions), I don't see how you can make an absolute blanket claim that all online gambling in the U.S. has been banned for years.

Re:Another reason.

[SIIHP]

"as it was mainly the casinos pushing for this legislation (under the guise of 'gambling is evil!')."

No, the casinos were against this legislation.

It frustrates me that so many of you are getting modded up when all you're doing is spewing the same tired corruption spiel and are completely unaware of reality.

In case you weren't aware, the bill makes interstate gaming illegal for US casinos too.

Re:Another reason.

[raehl]

I was referring to casino-style online gambling.

The laws that make online gambling illegal have SPECIFIC exemptions for the SPECIFIC kinds of gambling you mention. Absent those SPECIFIC exemptions, online gambling has always been illegal (according to the US government, anyway).

What Antigua is arguing is that since the US has carved out exceptions that allow some kinds of online gambling, that disqualifies the US from making the argument that they are entitled to ban online gambling on the same basis that Muslim countries are entitled to ban alcohol imports, because the Muslim countries have a blanket legal and cultural objection to alcohol, but no such blanket legal or cultural objection to gambling exists in the US.

Re:Another reason.

[raehl]

The online gambling ban effort was started by Jack Abramoff. Jack received a fairly large amount of lobbying fees from Indian tribes. With casinos.

Re:Another reason.

[SIIHP]

And? The Indian Tribes have come out on record, as have the casinos, that they opposed the legislation. They are also currently lobbying to have it repealed. So of course it makes sense that they paid to pass it, then paid again to repeal it...

Again, you= three degrees of pointless conspiracy, me= reality.

Re:Another reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

The indian tribes are outraged that Abramoff took their money and gave it to Israeli settlers so they could build more and steal more land. One of the tribe leaders called it "outer limits bizarre."

Re:Another reason.

[mark2003]

Not quite correct - gambling over the phone is legal in US provided both the location where the bet is place and taken are in jurisdictions where gambling is legal. For example it is perfectly legal to place to place a bet in Atlantic City with a bookie in Vegas.
 
For some reason this does not apply if the place where the bet is taken is in a location where gambling is legal if it is outside the US. This is one of the key points on which the US has screwed itself - it is blatantly anti-competitive behaviour favouring US gambling companies over those that are based elsewhere, for example gambling companies listed in London or based in Antigua.

Does this give them the right to export?

[moderatorrater]

If other countries have to honor the US copyrights, does that mean they can't import the goods from antigua?

Re:Does this give them the right to export?

[TheoMurpse]

I don't think they can. Article 16(1) and (2) of the Berne Convention say:

(1)Infringing copies of a work shall be liable to seizure in any country of the Union where the work enjoys legal protection.

(2) The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall also apply to reproductions coming from a country where the work is not protected, or has ceased to be protected.

This is why many CDs imported from Asia are technically illegal to sell in the US--they are bootlegs. SonMay and other companies come to mind. Also, you cannot sell pirated Windows XP in the US if you import the pirated works from Singapore or another non-signatory of the Berne Convention.

Of course, if the importing country isn't a signatory and they have no relevant local IP laws, I don't see why they couldn't import the media.

Also note that in (1), the "work" is not "individual copy of the work," but rather the abstract notion of the work itself. For example, my copy of Santa Clause Defeats the Martians is not the work, but rather the concept/idea/production/etc. of the most amazing and wonderful film.

Full disclosure: I don't start studying IP law and international law for three more days or so, so this is only a vague merely-one-year-completed law student understanding of IP law. I'm sure there are many intricacies that I don't know, but I feel confident enough about my understanding to place electron to monitor (pen to paper? anyone?) and click "Submit."

Re:Does this give them the right to export?

[Jardine]

Also note that in (1), the "work" is not "individual copy of the work," but rather the abstract notion of the work itself. For example, my copy of Santa Clause Defeats the Martians is not the work, but rather the concept/idea/production/etc. of the most amazing and wonderful film.

Do you mean Santa Claus Conquers the Martians? It's in the public domain now and can be downloaded from archive.org

USA is loosing US in "Made in USA" ...

[zolf13]

Made in USA -> Made in A(ntigua)

The WTO and Health and Safety Standards

[saterdaies]

First, no one is talking about (or they shouldn't be if they are) a blank check to violate copyrights. They would be allowed to violate copyrights of a value equivalent to the estimated value of the loss created by the United States' alleged improper behavior. If that loss is estimated to be $3bn, they could be given permission to violate $3bn in copyrights.

The more important question is why does Antigua respect American copyrights at all? Well, because they gain from respecting them. It's part of free and fair trade. You aren't just allowed to take something from someone. Along the same lines, you aren't allowed to bar someone from importing goods or providing services to your citizens unless they is a defendable reason - such as an authentic health and safety standard.

The WTO is the body that makes sure everyone plays by the rules. It is a voluntary association and people can leave it - and then make whatever laws they want. So, Antigua can leave the WTO and violate copyrights as much as they want - the problem is that WTO countries then can't/won't trade with them and so they loose a lot more than they would gain.

In this case, the United States would have to prove that online gambling is sufficiently worse and different from traditional gambling (which is legal in the US) - a reason why traditional gambling doesn't pose a threat to their population, but that online gambling does. Antigua needs to prove that the US regulations on online gambling don't actually protect the American people, but are rather meant to give American companies the advantage over Antiguan companies.

This isn't some weird global government looking to get rid of sovereignty. This is about using logic to determine when rules are meant to be discriminatory based on national origin and when something is a genuine health or safety standard. The US can make the argument that online gambling becomes too accessible and is therefore a much greater danger than traditional gambling. Antigua can argue that it's the same thing that happens at casinos. A court will decide which arguments hold weight based on evidence.

Re:The WTO and Health and Safety Standards

[RayMarron]

...If that loss is estimated to be $3bn, they could be given permission to violate $3bn in copyrights.

According to RIAA estimates, that's about 17 songs worth.

Re:The WTO and Health and Safety Standards

[bigdavex]

In this case, the United States would have to prove that online gambling is sufficiently worse and different from traditional gambling (which is legal in the US) - a reason why traditional gambling doesn't pose a threat to their population, but that online gambling does.

I don't think that does it either. The UIGEA carves out exceptions to allow gambling over the internet for certain domestic ventures.

Re:The WTO and Health and Safety Standards

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is not online gambling in general. The issue is that the United States Government is restricting foreign online gambling businesses while placing no such restrictions on domestic online gambling businesses.

Re:The WTO and Health and Safety Standards

[Thundercleets]

There is also the problem with credit card fraud that is/was rampant in the online casinos out of Antiqua and others. Then there is the prospect of money laundering that will/does occur in online operations like these. Then there is the little matter that this is one way. Whither a mistake or not most WTO member preclude gambling from WTO. The US needs to be out of the WTO NOW!

Re:The WTO and Health and Safety Standards

[noidentity]

"The more important question is why does Antigua respect American copyrights at all? Well, because they gain from respecting them. It's part of free and fair trade. You aren't just allowed to take something from someone."

So let's say a tourist brings some CDs with them to Antigua and someone there copies them, then more copies are made for people in Antigua. The tourist returns to America. What exactly would Antigua be taking in this case?

Re:The WTO and Health and Safety Standards

[argent]

So let's say a tourist brings some CDs with them to Antigua and someone there copies them, then more copies are made for people in Antigua.

You didn't understand the bloke you're responding to.

If these copies were part of the 3.5 billion in question, then they would need to be accounted for. We're not talking about them becoming some kind of IP free trade zone, we're talking about them being able to get the 3.5 billion judgement by selling 3.5 billion dollars worth of US-owned intellectual property.

Re:The WTO and Health and Safety Standards

[TexVex]

Rampant credit card fraud, you say? Money laundering? Huh? Are you just making stuff up, or repeating xenophobic FUD?

These are aboveboard businesses, not underground mafia crime rings.

Re:The WTO and Health and Safety Standards

[Anonymous Coward]

The more important question is why does Antigua respect American copyrights at all? Well, because they gain from respecting them. It's part of free and fair trade. You aren't just allowed to take something from someone. ... The WTO is the body that makes sure everyone plays by the rules. It is a voluntary association and people can leave it - and then make whatever laws they want.

This kind of double-talk is exactly how people are swindled by the WTO, World Bank, IMF, OECD, and other global regulatory agencies (and subsequently the multitude of central banking systems). They are the opposite of Free Trade; owned and operated by a cartel of corporatists bent on maintaining their own private empires through lies and guns rather than innovation and competition for consumer choice.

I'm all for legitimate profit and genuine free trade, but when we start talking about meetings behind closed doors by an autocratic few to decide economic quotas and legal privileges, we enter the kind of economic planning done by Gosplan in days of old.

If we as a human race are more interested in creating wealth than in complimenting emperors on their fine new clothes, we have only one inescapable rule to play by: The customer is always right.

Goodbye, GPL

[Garridan]

This is *bad* news for the GPL. The GPL exists because of copyright law. Thanks to this ruling, any corporation (read, Microsoft) is free to move an office to Antigua, steal our code, and ship it back to the US. Maybe this is about free music for some people... but for a lot of developers, this is a big blow: thousands of (wo|)man-years, that any corporation may steal and sell back to the public at profit, without crediting the original author.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[Dachannien]

That's not exactly true. Once X, whatever X might be, is shipped back to the US, it is still governed by US copyright.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[KokorHekkus]

This is *bad* news for the GPL. The GPL exists because of copyright law. Thanks to this ruling, any corporation (read, Microsoft) is free to move an office to Antigua, steal our code, and ship it back to the US. Maybe this is about free music for some people... but for a lot of developers, this is a big blow: thousands of (wo|)man-years, that any corporation may steal and sell back to the public at profit, without crediting the original author.

No, it's no biggie for GPL. Just because one jursidiction doesn't recognize the rights of the writer/ownre it doesn't mean that other jurisdictions will follow. Otherwise I could, say, print 500000 copies of the latest Harry Potter book in some godforgotten place on earth, ship them to Sweden where I live and make a very handsom profit.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Most GPL project are already not base in usa anyway.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Yadda yadda.. are you freaking stupid? Or do you seriously think that if you go to Amsterdam and buy as much pot as you can carry (legal afaik), it magically remains legal when your flight touches down in N.Y on your way back? Also, this entire mental (lack of) exercise is based on the assumption that the coprightholder is a US citizen/corporation, which is pretty far from certain.

And who the fuck thought parent was "insightful"!?

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[mdozturk]

Bringing in software that is in the public domain is not illegal (unlike pot). The WTO will effectively give Antigua the right to replace GPL with any license it wants: antigux.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Disregard of copyright != public domain. Also this ONLY applies to the jurisdiction of Antigua, just like the legality of pot ONLY applies to the Netherlands. You try shipping around your merchandise in any other jurisdiction, you're - if you pardon the pun - smoked, whichever of the two you have.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Bringing in software that is in the public domain is not illegal (unlike pot). The WTO will effectively give Antigua the right to replace GPL with any license it wants: antigux.

Doesn't work that way. If I stole a car in the US and drove it to Mexico, it'd still be stolen, and driving it back into the US doesn't make it mine. The only place the code is in the public domain is in Antigua, you can't "launder" it by shipping code there and bringing it back, since it'd still be copyrighted outside of Antigua.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[Garridan]

Not so. Without copyright law, the entirety of the GPL is unenforcable. This isn't about legal / illegal wares, this is about ownership of code. No copyright law means that I can take GPL source code in Antigua, strip off the license, and re-publish it in my own name.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem, of course, is the failed analogy of copyright as "property". The notion of "IP" is clouding people's understanding of what a WTO ruling would mean.

The WTO ruling would mean only that there would be no enforcement of U.S. copyrights against folks in Antigua. So, if someone in Antigua downloads a song (or software, or whatever) without permission, so long as the copyright protecting it was a U.S. copyright, the Antiguan government could choose not to enforce the copyright and there would be no mechanism under international law to force them to do otherwise.

This does not mean that the person against whom no enforcement action takes place somehow gained ownership of the song, software, or whatever -- only that the person who does own the copyright can't do anything about him/her having a copy, or making more copies and distributing them in Antigua. If the he or she tries to slap a different license on the item, the license isn't valid because he or she isn't the copyright holder. This doesn't mean that Antigua can't choose to pretend the license were valid -- after all, they aren't bound to enforce the copyright -- but it does mean that the new license won't have any force outside Antigua.

As soon as the person tries to distribute the song/software/etc. outside Antigua, enforcement of the orignal (U.S.) copyright is again possible. I suppose the WTO might try to order the U.S. not to enforce copyright in such a case, but since the whole point is about the U.S. refusing to comply with a WTO order you can guess how well that would work.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[mdozturk]

The car analogy is bad; but I'll play along: I never stole the car, a judge gave it to me. I can drive it to Mexico, US, Europe, wherever; the car belongs to me.

From the article:

permission for Antiguans to violate intellectual property laws by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among others.

This basically is asking for a ruling to give a copyright to all US IP. In other words, I live in Antigua, I have a copy of Linux, the source says I should obey GPL but the WTO says I can ignore it. I can make changes to the source (remove GPL) and distribute it all I want.

If I'm in the US and come by a version of no-license-linux released legally by someone in Antigua. If I use that code am I doing anything illegal? I don't think so.

Then again, stuff that is GPL'ed cannot be considered pure US IP because many people around the world contributed to them. So Antiguans probibly would not be able to redistribute without GPL.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[meringuoid]

This is *bad* news for the GPL. The GPL exists because of copyright law. Thanks to this ruling, any corporation (read, Microsoft) is free to move an office to Antigua, steal our code, and ship it back to the US.

At best Antigua would only get the go-ahead to ignore US copyright law. Violating most GPL projects would involve infringing copyrights owned by Europeans, Japanese, Australians, Indians... Hence, illegal even in the Antiguan data haven.

And if Microsoft ship the code back to the US, then distribution is governed by US law, not Antiguan law - and so copyright comes back into force.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, wrong.

You only get to treat it as your own while in Antigua. As far as everyone else is concerned the car is still stolen, and you go to jail for theft if caught driving around in it outside Antigua, since whatever local authorities you get to interact with have *not* been given permission to consider it yours. Ie. as in the pot example I used above, "locally allowed != globally allowed".

What's so damned hard to get about that?

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[micpp]

But only in Antigua. Just because something becomes public domain in Antigua doesn't stop copyright applying everywhere else. Also, this only applies to US copyrights, and surely some GPL code is made in other countries.

Re:Goodbye, GPL

[shutdown -p now]

You can only do so in Antigua (i.e. you wouldn't be able to export such code to any other country), and only if the original author wrote the code in the U.S.

What are the odds?

[seniorcoder]

Anyone offering odds on the outcome?

Re:What are the odds?

[dmatos]

I'd tell you, but I'm assuming you're from the States, and as I'm a Canadian, I really don't want to be dragged into the WTO courts until there's some precedent set.

Re:What are the odds?

[Alsee]

Sounds like a crooked bet to me.
Heads US Gov loses... tails the US Gov loses.

-

What does poker have to do with it?

[cdrguru]

I keep seeing this discussed as if it applies to online poker games only. That would seem to be silly. Why wouldn't every sort of computer game simply have a monetary reward associated with it? It would seem to be perfect to translate the video poker machine to online. And slot machines. And blackjack as well. Roulette. Keno. It all would be fair game.

Do you know someone that would play an online slot machine hoping for a big jackpot? I certainly do - I live with someone that would. She has friends that would do it too.

Vegas and Atlantic City are strictly regulated with payouts determined by the state gaming commissions. Indian casinos are a little more free to set payouts, but they are regulated as well. Online gaming would throw all of that regulation out the window and it would be wide open. It would cost almost nothing to "build" an online casino that offered hundreds of different games. You could easily pay off enough to have lots of testamonials about how great this is.

It would rake in billions a year. Americans have utterly no self-control when it comes to getting rich via gambling. Make it easy enough to get to and pay into and you would have a money machine that wouldn't quit. All you really need is a way to allow people to pay with food stamps. Houses would be good. Or take children. You would have people wanting to "spend" all of those.

Re:What does poker have to do with it?

[WilliamX]

Antiguan casinos are also closely regulated, something their country has taken a lot of effort with. They have pretty much been leading the way in their regulations of their online gaming licensees.

You should check it out, before jumping to conclusions...oh wait, forgot what site we were on, nm, carry on.

Re:What does poker have to do with it?

[Renraku]

This poster speaks the truth.

People have so much self control that they'll spend every last dime in a casino. A lot of people found the PC game Diablo 2 to be addictive because killing each enemy was a roll of the dice for a pretty piece of equipment with a shiny name. I can attest to the injection of feel-good chemicals in the brain when one drops..even if it is small. THATS how addiction begins. Some are stronger than others.

In a casino the flashing lights and ringing bells are the shiny name. Except you have to go through the bothersome process of showering/putting on clothes/gathering change from the 7-11 charity jar/etc..

On an online casino, you could lay in bed and play it all day, and go back to sleep from exhaustion when you've wasted your second mortgage.

Re:What does poker have to do with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

So we'd violate the WTO treaty by banning countries without that protection, but not banning Antigua, because the Antiguan ones are well regulated? The Internet is difficult to regulate, and online casinos are impossible to regulate.

Re:What does poker have to do with it?

[WilliamX]

You miss the point of the WTO, a blanket ban like that violates the WTO treaty, that is the law of the land as per our constitution once it was ratified by our Senate. The ban is impacting a treaty member, Antigua, and since the ban is a violation of the treaty, they have the right to seek comparable relief against the US. We are prohibited by law from interfering in the exercise of that relief once granted.

We have been under WTO sanctions before. As recently as 2004, trade partners sought WTO relief because the US enacted a law that granted a percentage of duties collected on foreign products to go to the American companies who compete with those foreign products. Canada, European Union, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, India, Japan and Chile asked the WTO to impose penalties on a range of U.S. products such as cod, textiles, glassware, mobile homes and apples as retaliatory sanctions that would amount to more than $150 million annually. Those penalties would have hit American businesses hard, making them less competitive in those markets, and thus providing some pressure on the US to comply with their treaty obligations.

The ban on online gambling was a not very well thought out law, nor was it subjected to the kind of review that would have brought these kinds of concerns to the attention of the Congress and maybe stopped them from passing bad law.

As for consumer protection against potential shady practices of online casinos, honestly, there is only so much we can, or should, do to protect consumers from their own bad behavior. Most counties that have legalized online gambling operations VERY closely regulate them. Canada and Antigua both have been very aggressive in this, but so have many other counties. The pressure that can be brought to bear on nations who allow rogue casinos to operate is great. Using the potential of rogue casinos as a justification for passing bad law is a case of bad logic as well.

MOD PARENT UP -- Insightful

[A nonymous Coward]

It's pointing that lack of copyright laws means massive duplication. Nothing to do with whether that is desirable or not, but it's just making the point in a way that some mods apparently don't understand.

Liberate Antigua!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If happens it wont take long for the first administration invade, err liberate Antigua.

You mean like Britney?

[A nonymous Coward]

Or Tom Cruise?

Yeh, those overpaid "artists" might have to actually earn a proper wage for a change.

A future windows update

[ILuvRamen]

So Microsoft puts out in a new service pack for XP and Vista with some unstoppable dug in processes that detects if you're on an antiguan IP address and shuts off your computer. No more internet equipped PCs running microsoft OS's for them. What's the big deal? No more windows for Antigua in general. Maybe that will teach them to try and steal stuff legally as if software makers would just put up with it.

Re:A future windows update

[6031769]

No more windows for Antigua in general. Maybe that will teach them to try and steal stuff legally as if software makers would just put up with it. Oh, man, that would be so sweet. Just imagine - the caribbean climate, as much online gambling as you could handle and no MS Windows! I'm there.

Re:A future windows update

[Zenaku]

I know I shouldn't be replying to what is obviously meant as a joke, but:

So Microsoft puts out in a new service pack for XP and Vista

Which they don't install.

with some unstoppable dug in processes

Unstoppable? Really? So. . . it's what, magic?

that detects if you're on an antiguan IP address and shuts off your computer.

And if my IP address is on a local subnet, the OS is going to know my gateway's location how?

Re:A future windows update

[TheLink]

If your machine ever gets to connect via the internet to microsoft or a microsoft controlled machine, the IP it is using to connect will be known.

Assuming a default install of windows, if you ever browse a microsoft controlled webpage (better block ads too ;) ) they could install any code of their choice - it's all signed by Microsoft's certs, which are conveniently installed in Windows.

You're going to have to figure out a different way to patch your windows systems too.

So

[enthused i swear]

Who wants to set up a colo farm in antigua?

Nope

[maz2331]

The moment they tried to distribute the code outside of Antigua, the copyrights and license kick back into full force.

lobbying == bribing?

[Anomalyst]

The U.S. banned international online gambling because of pressure (read: bribes) from the big domestic casinos

lobbying == bribing? Awful cynical there, aren't you?

Looks like a perfectly cromulent assesment to me.
Much more likely a congresscritter cast a vote because of some reward factor than some bogus moral imperative based on the critters ethics. /snigger

almost good

[someone1234]

No, Writable Media Dispensers. They could cover the whole US with pirated DVDs.
The effect is worse than a dirty bomb.

Re:almost good

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Think of the damage if they used Gigli. Oh, the Humanity!!

it better

[m2943]

The US needs international organizations to enforce the copyrights, trademarks, and other rules that US trade and wealth depends on. When the US disregards those rules, it runs the risk that its own rights will not be respected internationally anymore either. Intellectual property (think Microsoft, Hollywood, drug companies, etc.) is particularly vulnerable.

And that's exactly what the WTO action is supposed to get across: the US has a lot to lose here by not playing by international rules.

Re:it better

[jedidiah]

What's next? Columbians sue over the cocaine trade?

This isn't farm subsidies or steel tarrifs we're talking about here.

They are complaining that they can't instigate transactions online that they would be arrested for here.

Re:it better

[number11]

They are complaining that they can't instigate transactions online that they would be arrested for here.

Gambling is legal here. Well, for suitable values of "here". Bingo. Pulltabs. Slot machines. Casinos. Lotteries. Lotteries with websites promoting them and giving winning numbers and everything. TV ads doing the same. Horse racing. Offtrack betting, facilitated by telecommunications. Online betting.

If gambling is bad & evil, let them ban it entirely, rein in the moral debauchery encouraged by dozens of state governments, so-called "churches" and "nonprofits" and "sports". Otherwise, one (the WTO being such) gets the impression that we just don't want to allow others to share the lucrative market. No, huh? Well, then, welcome to globalization.

Re:it better

[jedidiah]

> Gambling is legal here.

No it isn't.

Let this American joker hiding in Antigua come here to San Francisco and set up shop.

The various local exceptions against gambling (which do not include casino gaming at all) are being used as a smokescreen to build a fascade of reasonableness. It's an obvious and dishonest attempt to push an anti-american political agenda. It demonstrates that whatever legitimacy the WTO might have had is just a sham.

This is the sort of bullshit that the rest of the world likes to accuse the US of.

Re:it better

[tinkerghost]

They are complaining that they can't instigate transactions online that they would be arrested for here.

Actually, what they are complaining about is that the US is blocking commercial transactions with Antiguan businesses that would be legal if the were businesses physically located inside the US. The WTO says that's a big no-no.

The US has claimed the moral exemption allowed by the WTO - That the morals of the US do not permit online gambling. However, as Antigua pointed out, the US does permit online gambling - OTB on dog & horse racing is legal interstate, and most forms of gambling are legal intrastate - in those states which have legalized gambling of any nature.

The WTO courts have rightly held that you can't claim a moral exemption for international activities, when it is permitted within your country. Either online gambling is morally offensive to the US & it's not to be allowed at all or it's not and the US has to open up the practice to everyone. The US doesn't get to pick & choose which types of gambling are offensive - it's either morally offensive or it's not.

As a case directly on point, it is currently perfectly legal to place a bet on the Kentucky Derby through the OTB website, it is however illegal to place the same bet on the same Kentucky Derby race through an Antiguan online site. This is why the US lost the case, they were claiming that the an action was morally repugnant to the US when done with an Antiguan business, but perfectly acceptable when done through a US based one.

Personally, I think you would have seen a bigger stink if they had gone for patents instead of copyright. The cries of anguish by the US pharmaceutical companies alone should be clearly audible on Antiguan beaches.

As it is, I would like to put in my request for a legal copy of Antiguan Vistas(tm) to run on my computer - just so I can smack the next BSA person I see with it. "Why yes, it is a perfect copy of Windows Vista - without all the DRM crap & calling home. OOh look here, I see that the source code has been released by the Antiguan Software Coalition."

Re:it better

[jedidiah]

>> They are complaining that they can't instigate transactions online that they would be arrested for here.
> Actually, what they are complaining about is that the US is blocking commercial
> transactions with Antiguan businesses that would be legal if the were businesses
> physically located inside the US. The WTO says that's a big no-no.

A total fabrication.

They were/are running a sports book.

That would get you arrested anywhere except for Vegas or an Indian reservation.

These aren't Antiguans being victimized. These are Americans hiding from US jurisdiction.

Re:it better

[trewornan]

No? From an outsiders perspective - we see US politicians complaining about how gambling is evil and foreign companies must not be allowed to corrupt US citizens. Then we think "hang on what about Las Vegas and Atlantic City where any US citizen can be corrupted to his hearts content". It begins to look like the problem is not gambling per se but the big business interests who think US gambling belongs to them alone.

So it's not a dishonest attempt to push an anti-american agenda - it's an entirely reasonable conclusion from looking at the facts.

Re:it better

[zarthrag]

That would get you arrested anywhere except for Vegas or an Indian reservation.

And this is consistent with international politics how? It's either repugnant, or it's not. "You can old do it if you are this company or in this city or on this 'special' plot of land." Doesn't exactly count with most people - whether they support gambling or not. Those who are against like the status quo because it prevents the "spread of corruption", those who are for it like it because it's a safe-heaven/money pot. But just because some company got around it by *leaving* the US doesn't make the double-standard OK.

Re:it better

[number11]

This is the sort of bullshit that the rest of the world likes to accuse the US of.

There's an old saying, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

After all, it's not like California had a state lottery. As much as it may be a shock to you, that's gambling! And it's not like you don't have bingo, or poker establishments in plain view, or even casinos. And let's not overlook the horse racing, complete with off track betting. Those things are all legal in California. I suppose if you want to make book on sports (other than horses) you may have to pop across the border to Nevada.

Californians (and inhabitants of the other states) obviously gamble. Aside from the fact that commercial gambling is a tax on people who didn't do well at math, how else is that anti-American? Because the vendors are in another country? That "free trade" stuff is hard to keep straight, isn't it?

Re:it better

[aproposofwhat]

Vegas or an Indian reservation

Last I heard, Vegas was part of the US, and nobody except the US has 'Indian' (shouldn't that be 'Native American', btw) reservations, so the fact is that whoever was running the business from Antigua, were they to relocate to Vegas or a reservation, would be allowed to pursue their business legally.

That's precisely what has upset the WTO, and the nationality of the business owners matters not one jot.

Whether you like it or not, Antigua has the US over a barrel here, and has a good measure of support in its WTO action from nations throughout the civilised world.

Re:it better

[tinkerghost]

They were/are running a sports book.

And online poker, and craps, and just about any other form of gambling - yes, including sports betting on MLB, NBA, and NFL games - but principly European Football (Soccer) & horse & dog races.

To say that they were only running a sports book is to ignore the fact that the vast majority of the money was going into online card games. Next it also ignores the fact that Antiguan gambling makes up about 30% of the GNP of Antigua & is highly regulated.

The point is, the US allows online gambling within the US, but not outside the US. That's a no-no according to the WTO. If gambling were morally repugnant to the US, we wouldn't allow it at all. We do, It's not, case closed. The US has 2 courses of action, allow international online gambling, or prohibit all online gambling in the US. They should not & rightfully have not been allowed to claim a 'moral exemption' while writing bills to expand the permissable forms of online gambling inside the US.

The US would have a legitimate 'moral exemption' claim to blocking sites which permit gambling on cockfights or dogfights because both activities are outlawed within the US at the federal level. However, even in your example of sports betting, it is not prohibited on a federal level. If it were, Vegas & Atlantic City wouldn't be able to do it.

The Federal Govt has barred interstate banking transactions covering gambling, but it then proceeded to carve out several exceptions - Dog & Horse racing being the 2 most prominent ones. Without those 2 exemptions, the US may have been able to win this case. However, the exemptions clearly show that online gambling itself is not repugnant to the US.

To be honest, if you examine the history of the laws that block online gambling, the money for the lobying came from 1 source - B&M casinos. This isn't about morality, it's about a fight over who's getting more of your finite entertainment dollars.

And the Stones Will Sing as the Sky Falls.

[twitter]

yeah, and no research more advanced than finger-painting

Do you really think the entire economy will stop and that no one will be interested in better ways of doing things? No singing and dancing either? Things will still get done because people want things done. Recently, "IP" has done more harm to research than good.

Antiguan Windows

[HangingChad]

Hey, is that the new Antigua Windows? Ten bucks a copy plus unlimited reinstalls.

The funny thing is, they would probably do a better job with distribution than Microsoft.

"Winds of change"

[harvey the nerd]

One wonders whether this presages a change in government there...

Re:May Be Allowed? I think not...

[akzeac]

Um, Ecuador's case was against the EU, not against the US.

Vegas / Atlantic City === MPAA / RIAA

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The U.S. banned international online gambling because of pressure (read: bribes) from the big domestic casinos. Mainly the Indian tribes and the Vegas / Atlantic City ones. Probably the state lotteries, too.

Presuming this is correct, the penalty is designed to hit one of those groups right in the pocketbook.

The big private industry casinos of Vegas and Atlantic City were started and at one time owned and run by organized crime. Then they got too big (i.e. required too much capital) and were owned and run by "ordinary" big business (i.e. single corporations such as that owned by Howard Hughes.) Then they got too big even for that and are now owned and run by entertainment superconglomerates - the same ones that run the movie and sound recording industries that would be hit by the copyright exception.

So as far as the casino interests are concerned its rock vs. hard place.

OOO, the dilema.... Money vs Morals

[darkonc]

And I'll bet you my BMW which one is would win, with bishop Bush in the white-house.

What is the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be no question that US will do whatever is best for US.

I think a funny resolution to the problem would be to just allow US online gambling businesses. Then no problem and no tear face for Antigua.

Re:What is the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be no question that US will do whatever is best for US.


Thank you Captain Obvious.

Re:Ninjas?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, congress can't be full of ninjas.
Two reasons:
    First, ninjas are skillful and have discretion, something congress totally lacks.
    Second, the lack of ninja sightings doesn't prove the existence of ninjas, though the apparent sightings of ninjas does disprove ninjas, as real ninjas don't get seen and reported.

(aka, the guy wearing the "off duty ninja" tshirt, isn't a ninja)

      ^_^

.

GPL is constructed so copyright going away is fine

[Ungrounded Lightning]

This is *bad* news for the GPL. The GPL exists because of copyright law.

The problem GPL is addressing is the potential application of copyright law to CHANGES to freed software or COMBINATIONS ("compilations") with other software: Locking up the changed or included-in-an-anthology versions under a new copyright and preventing others, including the original author, from using the derivative work. If not for that threat it would be sufficient to release free software in the public domain.

If copyright is turned off it doesn't matter. If copyright stays turned on - or is turned back on by leaving the copyright-free-zone - the only way to distribute additional copies is to license the original.

Now if some non-US person in Antigua makes a change to a GPLed work whose copyright owners are all US entities and copyrights it in Antigua, things could get interesting... But somehow I doubt that any other jurisdiction (ESPECIALLY the US) would attempt to enforce the Antiguan copyright in question. B-)

Agreed.

[FatSean]

If Antiguan businesses offer fair prices on media, I'll be buying it from them! As always, a big "FUCK YOU" to the US media industry is in order.

Re:Agreed.

[Nullav]

You're paying to pirate stuff? I'm not trying to troll or anything, I just don't understand why you'd want to pay someone who didn't have to pay for anything being sold, when you could get it all for free yourself.

Re:Agreed.

[GrpA]

No - Not paying to pirate it.... Antiguan Vista would be legitimate and Microsoft would have a hard time prosecuting people outside of the US who bought copies, and it would be difficult for other countries to police IP laws regarding this. Essentially, you could import and sell Antigua copies in other countries, destroying the value of the legitimate product...

Of course, it doesn't benefit people in the US as much, but if the legitimate copies sell overseas for a fraction of the cost, it would affect the value in the US to some extent as well.

GrpA

Re:Agreed.

[shaitand]

It wouldn't be paying to purchase stuff. If you buy something from a foreign hosted site you have purchase the material in that nation, if the material is legal there then according to treaty is legal when imported to your home nation (aka, downloaded after purchase).

That was the whole debate with allofmp3.com. IF the material really was legal under russian law, the copies you purchased were legal well. The only real debate was whether or not the material WAS legal under russian law.

Re:Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

So according to that logic, I can buy pot in Amsterdam, since it's legal there, and according to treaty it'd be legal when imported to the US?

Re:Agreed.

[Nullav]

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's only uploading that's illegal in the US. I could be wrong, though.

Re:Agreed.

[sumdumass]

This exception would only be fore the governed area they control. It is pretty clear who holds copyright and patents in any software MS would claim to own. The berne convention and several other treaties would make it binding so MS could still go after them. The difference now would be the corporation or whoever is buying the stuff would need to double check where it came from in order not to get burnt.

This isn't all the different from China or Vietnam when they were selling pirated clothing designs. It was legal in their country but when they were imported to others, they were subject to forfeiture and all those rules. I remember several places getting shut down and loosing their entire inventory because they stocked some of these clothes. They even suffered lawsuits from the ip holders and all.

And at least in America, the DMCA would so anything designed to get around the activation and other limitations would land the importer as well a reseller into a world of trouble.

But you can't declare war on pirates.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're pirates. They're not a nation; no sovereign monarch rules over them.

Sure, you can have the Royal Navy cruise up, let fly, and hang the bastards, but that's not war, it's merely enforcement of the law.

(Yes, I'm trying to stop people from declaring war on piracy, because it is my life's goal to steal the HMS Victory, load her with cannon, and start sinking, burning or taking a prize any ship bearing the goods of the RIAA. Come to think of it, maybe carronades would be better. No one's going to suspect the HMS Victory of shooting at them.)

(Note for Government-Sponsored RIAA spooks: No, not really. I'm joking.)

(Note for Slashdot: No I'm not. Join me, mateys! The best in provisions, 16 ounces to the pound, free tobacco, mountain dew, bawls and shipwide LAN!)

Music for gambling

[cylcyl]

So now, all your gambling comp points can be redeemed for DL's of music and movies. That would be an awesome perk

Force a country to switch to Linux?

[argent]

Are you crazy? Do you honestly think that Microsoft would deliberately force an entire country to switch to Linux? Microsoft will happily bend over backwards to keep Windows on desktops any time anyone with a high profile actually suggests such a thing.

Not to mention that in the long term turfing Windows would be a huge benefit for them.

I don't get it.

[OrangeTide]

Why would the WTO matter, if you do not allow the importation of a service as long as you don't allow it from ANY nation it should not be a WTO matter. It's when you single out individual WTO members to exclude them or include them is when problems arise. If the US does not allow gambling except at specific places in its own nation, that seems fine to me.

If the issue were that gambling were allowed in the US by US companies and French companies but not by any other nation, that would be a big deal. But it seems to me that the US wants to exclude all its citizens from online gambling with all nations.

Or is the US allowing people in other nations to gamble at Los Vegas online, but not its own citizens? I don't know all the details.

Re:I don't get it.

[asc99c]

I think you've completely missed the point of the WTO - enabling free trade. If you allow a service or product, you have to allow companies (or individuals) from any country to compete to provide that.

The big US gambling companies run casinos in other countries and online making money from those overseas markets, but the US is effectively saying that other countries companies can't have access to the US market. That is clearly not free trade, and stopping such practises is exactly what the WTO is about (amongst other things).

Of course, if you create laws that forbid certain products - alcohol (Muslim coutries), speed camera detectors (Australia, I think) etc. - then that's a different matter, and no-one can sell them.

Re:I don't get it.

[OrangeTide]

but if it is within my own borders why do I have to enable free trade? It does not make sense to force every WTO member the compete in the global market. I think only once you choose to enter a global market should you have to compete on an even playing field with everyone else!

I was originally under the assumption that the US wanted to stop all internet gambling within its borders. Which is kind of how the Bush Administration presented the idea to everyone. But it seems the issue is far more complex than that.

And after I dug around a bit, it seems the US is allowing internet gambling to go on with foreign countries. So it really is a WTO issue. But if the US just banned all internet gambling, it seems like there would be no issue. The problem is Antigua can't compete with the US if they are going to be banned from participating in the same markets that the US does. But if the US were to no longer be a competitor I think the WTO issue would have to be dropped, at least logically that seems how it would have to work.

Japan forbids importing of beef from most nations, yet it is able to export beef.

Re:I don't get it.

[GaelTadh]

Yes but Japan can prove that the countries that it bans beef imports from have had CJD in their beef stock and Japan has not. So that in banning beef imports from those countries it is protecting its citizens from harm that that may come from eating beef from those countries but can guarantee that the same risks are not in play when you eat Japanese beef. The US must prove that allowing US citizens to gamble on international sites is much worse that gambling on US sites ( off track betting, internet lotto ).

Caribbean Basin Initiative

[SteveFoerster]

There are a couple problems with the idea of Antigua becoming pirate central. One is that they have most favored nation trading status with the U.S., which is economically very important to them, because they participate in the Caribbean Basin Initiative. Of the the things to which a country agrees when joining CBI is (drumroll please) to observe U.S. "intellectual property rights". So sure, the WTO may say they can ignore them, but if they do then it suddenly becomes a lot more difficult to trade with the U.S.

The second thing is that reliable server colo and hosting can be really expensive down there. There are only so many ways for bits to get on and off the island. I'm not sure if Cable & Wireless is the only provider anymore, but if not then the others are likely to be connected by satellite connections -- can you say 1000ms latency?

Trust me, no one would be more delighted than I for the Eastern Caribbean to become an IP-free paradise of data haven goodness. But I don't expect it no matter how the WTO case turns out.

Re:GPL is constructed so copyright going away is f

[tppublic]

If copyright is turned off it doesn't matter.

Not True. If copyright is turned off, then it operates like the public domain. Someone can modify GPL code and ship a binary that includes the modified code without providing you the original. That is not the same as what the GPL today provides.

What I fail to understand....

[mark-t]

... is why other countries can't just ignore the USA's prohibitions against online gambling as easily as Antigua was proposing they would ignore American copyrights, etc.

Re:What I fail to understand....

[Anonymous Coward]

The US isn't prohibiting all online gambling everywhere. In fact, they're not even prohibiting online gambling. What they are doing is prohibiting US banks and credit card companies from paying international online gambling companies. If you are an international online gambling organization and you want access to US customers, you can't really ignore the fact that they can't pay you.

The argument is that it's unfair to other countries that the US restricts US online gambling to US companies. I guess Antigua is the only country invested heavily enough in US online gambling to make an international incident out of it.

US attitude towards WTO...

[dskoll]

... is the same as Microsoft's attitude towards standards: Use when convenient; ignore when not.

Re:US attitude towards WTO...

[SLi]

Well, it's not like Antiguans need some help from the US government to duplicate US movies, songs and software.

Countdown : 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Countdown to Antigua being declared a part of an "axis of evil" : 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Re:Countdown : 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[phoenix.bam!]

Antigua has always been part of the axis of evil.

*cough* ebay *cough*

[Anonymous Coward]

Ruining a money-takers online reputation when the folks sending them money discover shady dealings doesn't seem to be even a bump on the road. Crooked sellers using ebay seem to have found *lots* of ways around "reputation."

When its simple to change your name because you don't have to re-do floors and floors of architecture, signage, etc. there's little value left in branding.

Make that past tense

[Anonymous Coward]

the US has incredible economical and financial muscle.

Make that "had", until about 5 years ago.

Today the USA has about as much financial clout as a homeowner who can barely keep up the payments on his subprime mortgage.

This cartoon from The Economist sums up the US financial position today.

It is very easy to know

[SIIHP]

"I don't see any limits when you move it online. How do you know if you are being cheated? You wouldn't."

As with any computer based endeavor, there would be databases compiled. In the case of gaming, any deviation from statistical norm would be obvious and easily noticed.

This has been covered more time that I can count in numerous "X site is RIGGED!!!!" discussions, and every time it is shot down because it would be much EASIER to notice cheating online.

And if you're cheating, your business is dead.

Lastly, why the fuck would you risk your cash cow for a few extra percentage points of profit, when you have a habit forming product that will eventually bleed your customers dry anyway? (and if you're going to post "GREED!!!" please don't, I'd like intelligent discussion, not whackjobs)

If I can't sell to Peter, I'll rob from Paul

[frdmfghtr]

Let me see if I get this straight...

In the US, gambling on overseas casino websites is banned while certain domestic gambling websites (OTB, online lottery tickets) are allowed to operate. Antigua, where online casinos thrive, argues that the US policy is harming their trade. The WTO rules that the US must either all ow all forms of online gambling or ban all forms of online gambling.

Should the US disregard the WTO ruling and not allow US citizens to use overseas casino websites, Antigua would be granted the following as compensation: "permission for Antiguans to violate intellectual property laws by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among others."

Isn't that like saying "Well, if I'm not allowed to sell to Peter, I'll steal from Paul to compensate!"? (Overlook the whole copyright-violation-isn't-stealing issue on this, and grab hold of the concept of stealing from an unrelated party as compensation.)

Re:If I can't sell to Peter, I'll rob from Paul

[Rakshasa Taisab]

But Peter and Paul are in the same family business, and grandfather Dick is the one who decided that you can't sell to Peter.

Re:If I can't sell to Peter, I'll rob from Paul

[sulimma]

The point is, that originally any country is free to legislate it's own copyright rules. You know, in the 19th century in the US copyright existed only for works of US origin. Before that, there was no copyright at all.

Be joining the WTO a country forfeits that right and the legislation agrees to implement certain rules. Now the US do not play by the rules they agreed on, so Antigua asks to get another rule lifted in return. This can't be the same rule, because Antigua is allready complying to that rule and intends to continue that.

As seen by the WTO, it is not someone else paying. The USA cause the harm, so the USA pays the price. The USA is free to compensate internally (The US government could try to force casinos to pay to the RIAA), but that is none of WTOs business.

And...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when the US puts an air and sea blockade around their country, and cuts off all communication lines and jams satellite signals....welp, the US still wins.

Stupid fucking retards. When will they learn.

Imagine, a tourist paradise, and big internet gambling haven...cut off from civilization because they think they can make the WTO tell a country how they can or can't handle a specific type of behaviour and communication on their own.

I can't wait. Because, in the end, they will lose.

It's not just Govt and Gambling industry

[SIIHP]

"As long as the dispute is between US Govt and US Gambling industry..."

It's not just between the government and the gambling industry.

The banks have become involved because they are concerned the cost of implementing measures to comply with the law would be high and generally not effective.

moving

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to move to Antigua!

Not a problem, and no.

[raehl]

The problem for the US is how to collect the taxes. The US can't tax no-resident corporations. One way might be to have US residents report their gambling activities in their annual tax filings and pay the tax, but look at how well that approach works for states that demand "use" taxes for inter-state puchases.

What huh? The US can most certainly tax non-resident corporations.

The US would tax BOTH gambling profits by the gamblers *AND* the companies doing the gambling, and both are pretty easy.

First, you amend the law to allow online gambling, but only allow banks to transfer money to licensed companies. Since the companies are licensed, you know who they are, can collect your taxes, and if they don't pay, you revoke the license and put them out of business.

As far as the gamblers, collecting taxes there is especially easy - your bank already reports how much you make to the IRS; deposits from gambling companies aren't any harder to track than any other deposit. (The reason use taxes are hard to collect is there's no record anywhere that a resident buys something out of state and brings it into the state - and even if there was, the second a state tries to collect there will be a nice lawsuit and the law will be overturned as an illegal tariff on interstate commerce anyway.)

There is a secondary problem -- what about those people that the US has thrown in jail for running offshore Internet gambling operations. What happens to them if the US decides that Internet gambling is legal? Could they sue on the basis that Internet gambling is currently legal because of the US's treaty obligations (the WTO treaties) and thus their convictions were wrong?

The WTO ruling is orthogonal to whether online gambling in the US is illegal or not. The WTO isn't saying that gambling in the US is legal. The WTO is saying that allowing casino-style gambling by US companies while prohibiting online-gambling by foreign companies is not legal and the US must make online gambling legal or face WTO-imposed consequences (specifically, Antigua gets to copy stuff.) So no, there would be no basis to sue, because even if the US changes the law to make online gambling legal in the future, it wasn't legal at the time the people thrown in jail were arrested and prosecuted.

Re:Not a problem, and no.

[whoever57]

What huh? The US can most certainly tax non-resident corporations.

Only if those corporations agree to being taxed, or if they have a presence in the USA. If they don't have a presence, there is no way to enforce collection.

First, you amend the law to allow online gambling, but only allow banks to transfer money to licensed companies.

I suspect that the WTO would see this as simply another way in which the US would be failing to live up to its WTO agreements. "Licensing" could be refused for arbitrary reasons, or there could be double-taxation issues. It's just another non-tariff barrier.

The WTO ruling is orthogonal to whether online gambling in the US is illegal or not.

No, it isn't. The constitution states that treaties become the law of the land. Thus, if, under the WTO treaty, offshore gambling should be legal, then it was legal. Now I am not a lawyer, and I don't know whether such an argument would hold water, but I am willing to bet that there are lawyers out there who are considering just such an argument.

Re:Not a problem, and no.

[raehl]

Thus, if, under the WTO treaty, offshore gambling should be legal, then it was legal.

But the WTO treaty doesn't say offshore gambling should be legal. It says only that countries who erect trade barriers in violation of WTO rules can forfeit other international trade protections (like copyright protections).

At issue is not whether the gambling is legal or not - it's not - but whether the fact that it's not legal is a violation of free trade standards, and as a result of that violation, whether Antigua should get to copy all the stuff it wants.

YRI

[SIIHP]

You recall incorrectly

"The American Gaming Association, the industry group representing those big domestic casinos, opposed legislation banning online gambling. See:

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/5/american-gami ng-association-study.htm [pokernews.com]
http://www.americangaming.org/hillupdate/reports_d etail.cfv?id=9 [americangaming.org]"

Shamelessly stolen from jaffray who saved me the trouble of finding it myself.

Poker isn't gambling

[SIIHP]

It's a skill game.

And if you disagree, we can play heads up for your life savings any time you like.

Make your arguments if you want, there's nothing you'll try that hasn't been tried and refuted long before.

Attention investors:

[Duncan Blackthorne]

If this is the way things fall out, then I see a big future lies ahead for the Antigua internet hosting market. ;-)

Re:May Be Allowed? I think not...

[Lemmy Caution]

Correct, and I miswrote, but the point is that the WTO has awarded this in the past.

What?

[stonecypher]

So, because some jackass wants to shut down gambling, suddenly Antiguans think they are able to steal my software and pass it around? Absolutely not. That would be punishing American companies and private citizens for government gambling policies. There is no part of international law which works that way; this is a smoke screen. And, if by some perversion of law that does go through, I forsee a whole *lot* of network software starting to check IP addresses and refusing to run in Antigua. When they cry about how unfair it is that they're not allowed to steal our software, we'll just cry back that it isn't fair that they should take money out of our pockets because two governments can't decide how to handle gambling.

There is absolutely no direction from which this is ethical. Take off the RIAA/MPAA hate blinders, and think about what this would do to small software vendors. This has to be stopped dead in its tracks, right now, or the number of companies growing to work on the web and to fight companies you hate like Microsoft will drop sharply.

Get it through your heads: these things hurt small businesses, not large businesses. This is revenge, not justice, and they're exacting it on the wrong people.

Re:What?

[hengist]

So, because some jackass wants to shut down gambling, suddenly Antiguans think they are able to steal my software and pass it around? Absolutely not. That would be punishing American companies and private citizens for government gambling policies. There is no part of international law which works that way; this is a smoke screen

Copyright protection for a work in the US is granted by the US government (it's in the constitution, IIRC). What the Antiguans are saying is, since the US government isn't playing by the rules they agreed to, the US government should lose the right to grant those protections, where Antigua is concerned.

I don't know why they're going after movie and software copyrights, though, I would have thought drug patents would be a far more lucrative target.

Re:What?

[SLi]

Sorry, but that's exactly how WTO works and is supposed to work.

If the USA doesn't play by the WTO rules and hence cause another member to lose money, the other country can in compensation e.g. set high customs tariffs for some class of products from USA. It doesn't need to be related to the area where the US is noncompliant. How and whether the US handles it internally so it's fair to those who lose money because of the sanctions is strictly an internal matter for the US.

Re:What?

[stonecypher]

Copyright protection for a work in the US is granted by the US government (it's in the constitution, IIRC). What the Antiguans are saying is, since the US government isn't playing by the rules they agreed to, the US government should lose the right to grant those protections, where Antigua is concerned.

Those rights are also guaranteed by the same set of World Trade Organization laws that they're trying to leverage in the first place. They can't have it both ways. Either they obey the WTO, and those copyrights are rock solid, or they disobey the WTO, at which point they haven't a leg to stand on.

I don't know why they're going after movie and software copyrights, though, I would have thought drug patents would be a far more lucrative target.

The US is not subordinate to international patent law, though we are subordinate to international copyright law. Antigua has no way to even pretend to attack our patents.

Re:What?

[stonecypher]

Sorry, but that's exactly how WTO works and is supposed to work.

There is no point at which the charter of the WTO says "if a government disobeys you, screw that government's citizens." It's cute to say that that's how it's supposed to work, but given the other misapprehensions that run around SlashDot from people who genuinely believe they know what they're talking about, I'll just have to wait until you provide something at least vaguely resembling citation before I discard common sense. There are dozens of legitimate ways for the WTO to approach this. Stealing from individuals who've nothing to do with the matter does not address the situation in any way, and has no basis in law - even if you insist otherwise.

Feel free to give a link supporting your claims at any point. Until then, I don't believe you know what you're talking about.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

these things hurt small businesses, not large businesses I'm sure the Antiguans would argue that the United States' violation of WTO rules is hurting the Antiguans' small businesses. It doesn't take a ton of employees (relatively speaking) to run an online gambling site.

This is revenge, not justice Given that there's no entity with the power enforce "justice" in international trade disputes, tit-for-tat is all that wronged parties have available to them. It would be foolish for the Antiguans to let their economy be severely damaged without a fight. They're better off trying to make sure the US plays by the rules it was largely responsible for creating.

Re:What?

[stonecypher]

I'm sure the Antiguans would argue that the United States' violation of WTO rules is hurting the Antiguans' small businesses.

For one, a casino is not a small business. For two, so what? What, because they believe our government is screwing them, they get to screw us back? That's not how these things work. "He did it first" is not a justification for breaking the law.

Mind you, I don't actually think the comparison is in any way apt. You're attempting to contrast lost opportunity to stolen work. By the same logic, if I own a whiskey distillery, I should be able to go looting in Muslim nations. That just doesn't make sense. Antiguans do not have the right to steal the software I wrote because George Bush decided that he didn't want offshore gambling. I really don't care how they feel about what George Bush is doing. At no point is there a reasonable response involved in Antiguans beginning to steal from individual Americans because they're angry about lost business opportunities. The idea that we're somehow discriminating against them is absurd; the reason they can't do business here is that they don't honor state laws. We do allow international gambling, under limited circumstances, but the recipient of the funds has extensive reporting requirements that they have to make. You can, in fact, gamble the French Riviera from the internet, or to Monaco, or to Prince Edward Island, or to Luxembourg.

Antigua is getting the short end of the stick because they refuse to own up to regulations, because they're difficult and expensive. Boo fucking hoo, if you won't do the job right, you don't get the job. That doesn't give them the right to steal from me at any level, moral, ethical, legal or otherwise.

At no point is it my fault that they won't mail in some goddamned forms, and if an Antiguan ever gets caught stealing my software, I'm hauling their ass into court to prove the point.

Given that there's no entity with the power enforce "justice" in international trade disputes

I'm sorry, are you confused about what "WTO" stands for, or why Antigua thinks they get to control American trade practices? At least get a basic familiarity with how things work before lecturing that they don't.

, tit-for-tat is all that wronged parties have available to them.

Where did you get this idea? Embargoes, bans, fines, taxes, levies, inspections, braces, taps, caps, freight blockage, and literally dozens of other options are available, and have been used against the United States in the past. Please do not confuse your understanding of the situation with the actual situation; just because you personally don't know what other options there are doesn't mean there are none.

It would be foolish for the Antiguans to let their economy be severely damaged without a fight.

If only they were fighting the right people. I'm sorry, but you seem to have entirely missed the point of what I said. Please brush up on the basics before you reply anew; it's a little annoying to have to point this stuff out.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahaha, it's your ox they're goring so you're going to have a little shitfit.. looks good on you, you moralizing wanker.

Re:What?

[stonecypher]

In other words, you have nothing actual and worthwhile to say, so you're going to troll.

Re:What?

[SLi]

I don't really know why I should go through the trouble of finding perfectly googleable information for a random slashdot poster, but since I have some time to spend, here you go:

Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (in WTO), article 22.3:

In considering what concessions or other obligations to suspend, the complaining party shall apply the following principles and procedures:

(a) the general principle is that the complaining party should first seek to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector(s) as that in which the panel or Appellate Body has found a violation or other nullification or impairment;

(b) if that party considers that it is not practicable or effective to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sector(s), it may seek to suspend concessions or other obligations in other sectors under the same agreement. (emphasis added)

How else do you really think it could work? It's not like Antigua can extract billions of dollars by placing restrictions on how its citizens may use US gambling services. It must be able to enforce the treaties in question somehow, and that's exactly what WTO is: A framework for supervising member states' implementation of free trade and providing a way to respond to violations.

Think this way: If small developing country A is a big exports of bananas to the US, while US exports iPods to country A. Now if country A places restrictions to iPods that it doesn't place to other countries or locally produced producs, do you think the US can extract the lost revenue by placing restrictions on tech imports from country A? Sure, that's the preferred way (paragraph (a) above), but if it's just not adequate, US can place import tariffs on bananas.

Fair enough?

Re:What?

[TheLink]

It's not stealing. It's called copyright infringement.

Copyright is a granted limited monopoly by the Government of a country on copying.

AFAIK the _international_ "you respect my country's copyrights and I respect yours" deal somehow became part of the WTO thingy which the US Gov agreed to.

So the way I see it if the US _allegedly_ doesn't hold up it's part of the WTO deal, Antigua is well within its rights to request the WTO to "redo the deal" accordingly, which in this case could mean Antiguans get to copy stuff.

People in the USA still won't be allowed to infringe on the US copyrights.

Anyway I doubt you'd have to worry, I'm sure the USA could get the WTO to change its mind even if the US decides to still persist...

After all the US keeps subsidising its farmers and steelmakers with tariffs and subsidies. Maybe if you're lucky (or form a lobby) you might get a subsidy from your Government ;).

Re:What?

[stonecypher]

How else do you really think it could work?

Well, considering as how that language fairly clearly suggests that the appropriate target of between the complaining body and the offending body, I should think that the concessions and obligations would be those to the offending body. I don't know why it is that you believe that's individual software developers; it most certainly is not. Please, help me understand what part of this is difficult: "if you have a problem with the US government, the appropriate response will target the government, not its citizens." I personally have neither the ethical, the legal nor the moral obligation to personally support trade tariffs.

It's not like Antigua can extract billions of dollars by placing restrictions on how its citizens may use US gambling services.

Yeah, that's what the WTO is for. I know, you just wrote WTO after that, but you've already made the critical error; saying WTO afterwards doesn't make you correct. It is immensely important to understand that at no point does the complainant have any part in the adjudication or enforcement of the law. That false presumption turns this whole thing on its head. If the WTO finds for Antigua, it starts taxing US stuff across the board. Want to send steel to China? The export levy that's been held against the US since the 1930s, well, a little tiny fraction of that goes to Antigua. Accepting a shipment of oranges from Brazil? That massive orange tax? Hey, guess where it's going, too? The point that matters here is that in those two cases, as well as dozens of other fairly easy to cook up scenarios, the money is coming out of the pockets of the US Government. It's not coming out of the pockets of the supplier, it's not coming out of the pockets of the purchaser, and it's not coming out of the pockets of the shipper. ONLY THE GOVERNMENT.

Look at it from a perspective that doesn't focus on your personal bugbears, and it becomes much simpler. Let's say we have two countries, and in the comic book tradition, we will give them thinly veiled eastern European names - Kreplachistan (ok, so that's Disney) and Latveria. So, Latveria - since it's run by Dr. Doom - has been engaging in a variety of ill trade practices with Kreplachistan. In response, Kreplachistan has gone to the WTO, who finds in their favor. Now, we have to construct a way for Kreplachistan to acquire reparations. Now remember, this is Doctor Doom we're talking about, so the people in Latveria are balls-on-poor. Who should the WTO extract payment from? The Latverian citizens, or the Latverian government? These people are starving, and Doctor Doom is throwing away billions to give himself a repeating platform to swear at Reed Richards.

So, you're a Latverian turnip farmer. You don't even know which direction Kreplachistan is, because Doom sees compasses as a challenge to his mighty sense of national direction. Suddenly some WTO geek comes down in a helicopter and says "pay up, dick, Doom screwed some casinos to the East." Does that really seem right to you? That is exactly what's going on here: the Antiguan lawyer is asking for permission to act against private individuals, not against the government that they are complaining against. At no point does the WTO have the authority to release my personal copyrights, under any fantasy reading of the law. I'm not sure why you think what you quoted says that they do; it even explicitly says "other sectors under the same agreement." Are you under the false presumption that my personal copyright for my personal work is governed by the American WTO treaty regarding international trade?

Do you think copyright is governed by trade law? If you do, I think we're pretty done here; that's a bit like trying to explain car theft in terms of manslaughter. This just isn't how the law works.

There are, in fact, two reasons to enact tariff against the United States; you seem to only recognize o

Re:What?

[SLi]

Umm, just how do you think Antigua is going to apply anything to the US government without applying it to US citizens? I think you misunderstand this system severely. The players in international treaties are countries, not governments or citizens. That's why sanctions and countermeasures also apply to countries, and it should not be a surprise that makes some of their citizens cry.

Re:What?

[stonecypher]

Umm, just how do you think Antigua is going to apply anything to the US government without applying it to US citizens?

This is the last time I'm going to explain it to you. If you fail again to understand, I will give up on you.

If a trade sanction is levied against a government, that sanction is levied against existing government tariffs. If, for example, I sell a ton of steel girders to China, the US taxes me to the tune of about 1.24% . That means that when I accept $260 for my ton of steel, I have to give $3.22 to the government. If a trade sanction was levied against the government, the money would be taken out of the $3.22 . The price to the Chinese buyer does not change. The profit to the seller does not change. The tariff does not change. The only thing that changes is what amount of that tariff goes to the US government. It is the US government paying the tab, because it's coming out of their money.

If Antigua was allowed to ignore copyright, the money they would be taking would not be that of the US government. It would be the money from the record labels, the software producers, the film studios and the book producers which was being taken. The WTO does not have the right to do that; whereas they govern trade, they do not govern IP. It is not within the WTO's purvey to take intellectual property rights, because they belong to companies and individuals instead of the federal government.

There is nothing wrong with the WTO taking money from the federal government. Trying to take money from companies and private citizens is criminal. If you really don't understand the distinction, then you need to quit telling other people what they do and do not grasp.

Re:What?

[stonecypher]

It's not stealing. It's called copyright infringement.

The popular myth that copyright infringement is not theft is deeply flawed. Under the definition of theft given by US law, copyright infringement is a cut and dried case of theft of services. This has been well established by precedent in this country for more than two hundred years, when the newspapers on the American frontier tried to get by by stealing newspaper copy. When the courts ruled that illegal, the various journalist wires that sold stories began, which led to Reuters. I'm also not sure why you waste your time attempting to draw the distinction, as if one is less illegal than the other. I've only ever heard pirates pretend there was a difference, and the only reason they don't want to call it theft is that they would then have to face being thieves.

It is both a false and a useless distinction.

Copyright is a granted limited monopoly by the Government of a country on copying.

No, it isn't. It hasn't been since the Berne conventions in the 1940s. Quit pretending to be a lawyer. Copyright is not a monopoly; monopoly is when, in the open market, a company manages to control 50% or more of a demographic. Since there is no open market on copywritten work, it clearly isn't a monopoly. Be sure to dust off that part of the constitution which uses the word monopoly, so that I can laugh at you for believing that the word means the same thing now as it did back then, in the eyes of the law.

Generally speaking, you should not assume that what you read on blogs is equivalent to a law degree.

AFAIK the _international_ "you respect my country's copyrights and I respect yours" deal somehow became part of the WTO thingy which the US Gov agreed to.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The WTO is a transactional trade jurisprudence concerned with physical stock items, and this slashdot furor notwithstanding, the WTO has no governance over copyright. The WTO is about selling bananas, steel and blue jeans. Intellectual property is not a moment of trade unless you're selling the rights to the item. The Berne Conventions assign the United Nations as the international governor of both copyright and patent disputes. The persistant idea that anything that deals with money inbetween nations is under the WTO's purview is fundamentally wrong-headed. If it's not a physical item, the WTO has nothing to do with it.

So the way I see it if the US _allegedly_ doesn't hold up it's part of the WTO deal

You might want to look up the word "alleged," as you cannot allegedly fail to do something, by definition. An allegation is an accusation of action in court. Please stop learning your legal jargon from the eleven o'clock news, and maybe dust off a copy of Bierce's Write It Right and learn ye some proper English. Of course, someone who understands the law does need to know what an allegation is, as it's a fundamental concept in law, but somehow I doubt this will dissuade you from believing yourself an expert.

So the way I see it if the US _allegedly_ doesn't hold up it's part of the WTO deal, Antigua is well within its rights to request the WTO to "redo the deal" accordingly, which in this case could mean Antiguans get to copy stuff.

What? Did you even try to figure out if this made sense before you said it? There is no point at which Antigua gets to break UN law if the WTO finds that the United States has raised unfair barriers to commercial entry. The WTO isn't even part of the UN. It's not even on the same continent as the UN. Less than two thirds of the world are under WTO governance, yet all but six countries on Earth are signatories of the Berne Conventions. Hell, the WTO didn't even exist until 1995; Antigua signed the Berne Conventions in 1956.

"The Deal" doesn't

Re:What?

[SLi]

I just think you are fundamentally mistaken. There's no way China is ever going to be able to get its money out of what the US government bills you, and that's not how it works. The price to the Chinese buyer definitely rises. There is no mechanism for WTO to "take money from the federal government", definitely not without the federal government's consent (as seems to be in this case). In that case WTO does just what you claim it doesn't.

If you RTFA, you can also see that this exact remedy has also been applied once before, in the case of Equador.

Re:What?

[stonecypher]

There's no way China is ever going to be able to get its money out of what the US government bills you, and that's not how it works.

At no point did I say China had anything to do with US taxes. You really need to learn to read.

Re:What?

[TheLink]

"The popular myth that copyright infringement is not theft is deeply flawed"

If such copying really was stealing you would be able to use the usual laws for theft against it.

How about you try doing that the next time someone copies your software/stuff instead of using copyright law.

In my country (Malaysia) the law says I can copy stuff for private or domestic use (I can't sell it etc). But I can't steal stuff even if it's for private or domestic use.

Maybe in the US most people think copying is the same as theft because *AA and the media keep brainwashing you folks.

And maybe the powers in the USA will eventually have their way and copyright infringement becomes the same as theft, and not just in the USA but worldwide.

But meanwhile, have a nice day! :)

Re:What?

[stonecypher]

If such copying really was stealing you would be able to use the usual laws for theft against it.

You do realize that we can, right?

In my country (Malaysia)

Oh, that's why you have no idea how US law works, and seem to believe everything SlashDot tells you.

Maybe in the US most people think copying is the same as theft because *AA and the media keep brainwashing you folks.

Man, you'll believe anything to feel correct, won't you?

And maybe the powers in the USA will eventually have their way and copyright infringement becomes the same as theft, and not just in the USA but worldwide.

Yeah, that day was the Brussels revision of the Berne Conventions, June 26, 1948, which Malaysia signed on October 1, 1990; on January 1 1995, Malaysia strengthened is commitment by also signing to TRIPS. Other laws of interest in Malaysia are the IP Corporation of Malaysia Act 2002, Trade Marks Act 1976, Patents Act 1983, Copyright Act 1987, Industrial Design Act 1996, Layout Designs and Integrated Circuit Act 2000, Geographical Indications Act 2000 and Optical Discs Act 2000. In particular, the the IP Corporation of Malaysia Act 2002 is actually stronger than the Berne Conventions require.

Funny how you don't even know your own country's laws, yet you're willing to lecture other people (wrongly) about theirs, isn't it?

Re:What?

[TheLink]

> > If such copying really was stealing you would be able to use the usual laws for theft against it.
> You do realize that we can, right?

Link/Evidence please?

Well, I admit I haven't been up to date with the US laws, so could be the **AA etc have won and copying has been redefined as theft in the USA. In which case sure, the laws of "New Theft" would apply. Then sure you're right and you "win", double plus ungood for the USA then.

> Funny how you don't even know your own country's laws, yet you're willing to lecture other people (wrongly) about theirs, isn't it?

I do know the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 even after the amendments in 1997 still allows me to copy for private and domestic use, the amendments however prevent distribution/sharing over networks.

Once the "private and domestic" exception is gone (it still isn't AFAIK) then the situation becomes a _lot_ worse than the USA. While it's still there, it's ok.

Meanwhile, my country is racing yours to the bottom :).

I was hoping (against the odds, I know) for a world where human brains could be enhanced without fear of DRM and Copyright laws strangling stuff till it becomes "a penny or more for your thoughts" uh make that "a penny or more to recall Sony's IP". Where it won't be illegal to have artificial photographic/videographic memory without a license (or doctor's certification).

So much for that and virtual telepathy (where you recall something and send it to a friend). The technology is almost there already - the kids are already doing a "low tech" version of it with their camera phones.

Oh well. Meanwhile, have a nice day!

New Home

[Araxen]

Well we found the new home of the Pirate Bay and Supernova if this is allowed.

Casinos? In San Francisco?

[douglips]

Let this American joker hiding in Antigua come here to San Francisco and set up shop.

The various local exceptions against gambling (which do not include casino gaming at all)

You're absolutely right, there are no casinos in San Francisco. You have to travel over 6 miles to get to the nearest casino.

Better department...

[EricTheGreen]

make that:

from the mouse-that-roared dept.

Nah

[ThatsNotPudding]

Don't forget the matching propaganda campaign, with thrillers like: Saving Private Ryan's Copyright, James Bond: Dr. No...Not Iraq - Bomb Antigua, and We're Out Of Bourne Books But Here's Matt Damon Asking You To Please Bomb Antigua Anyway...

I'll just wait for the books - plus they'll be cheaper if you order them on AMantiguAZON.com

I'm not cynical, I just work in DC.

[Kadin2048]

lobbying == bribing? Yes.

Awful cynical there, aren't you? Yes, but in this case it's unconnected.

MAFIAA vs. Mafia

[proidiot]

An epic battle over America's international trade policy is about to begin: Who will win? The MAFIAA or the Mafia?

here, see the problem

[r00t]

We're all stuck living in this one world. That's you, me, casino operators, gamblers, and so on.

Sometimes people have problems. Their problems affect you and me.

For example, a drunk might hit you with a car. Ideally his drinking is his problem, not something the government should regulate, but... that doesn't work so well.

We require school. This reduces crime and generally helps the economy. Sure, we could just try punishing the criminals, but we'd get a lot more of them. That's costly in many ways: the crime itself, the loss of potentially productive workers, and the cost of running prisons

We don't let people run around with untreated tuberculosis. Ideally we'd not infringe people's rights like this, but... I hope you can see why this is needed.

Gambling preys on the feeble-minded. These people get hopelessly in debt. These people then default on loans (pushing rates higher) and leave bills unpaid (you pay the costs, ultimately). Often these people turn to crime, either for money or because of frustration and anger about their debt.

Casinos are places of tragedy for regular folk. This really makes society worse for everybody.

As long as we have to share this one world, we need laws that discourage people from messing up OUR lives by messing up THEIR lives.

Re:here, see the problem

[Grishnakh]

I don't know about this. I agree the government has a valid place protecting us from each other, so that we don't resort to vigilantism and lynch mobs. This is why drinking while driving should be illegal, why people with TB or other communicable diseases should be forcibly quarantined to prevent an epidemic, etc. The school part is socialistic, but it's something I'm willing to live with because the benefit is much greater than the cost as you point out.

However, while you're definitely right about gambling preying on the feeble-minded, there's a fine line that has to be drawn somewhere between helping people and society, and being a nanny state.

If we should be protecting feeble-minded people from the dangers of gambling, what about other things that prey on feeble-minded people? Religion is a big one here: the whole point is to take your money in exchange for "saving your soul". Scientology in particular has this one down to a science, pun intended, but it just took its lessons from other religions and put a new spin on it all. Also, what about multilevel marketing schemes like Amway? Or snake-oil "medical" treatments, or snake oil products like "Slick 50" and "SplitFire spark plugs" for peoples' cars? Where do we draw the line protecting people from themselves?

Antiguan/Barbudian Vista

[rapiddescent]

Now there's a thought,
Antiguan Vista would have dialogue boxes that said:

[continue] [cancel] [maybe] [perhaps tomorrow] [whatever] [is that bob?]

did you know that the USA has an air force base there? I wonder how that would be used if the WTO ruling took effect? an up market Guantanamo for Antiguans perhaps?

rd

nobody really thinks the *AA controls the

[alizard]

government.

All Hollywood has in terms of politicians is whatever $23,177,938 in campaign contributions will buy.

Of course, politicians come amazingly cheap, if former Senator Fritz "Hollywood" Hollings is a slashdotter, perhaps he can tell us how much Hollywood bought him for.

Of course, the $23M was for 2006 alone, in the last Presidential election year, they spent $43M.

Gloating

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha. Eat it, RIAA. Eat it, MPAA. EAT IT! I know where my next vacation will be, and while I'm there I'm going to infringe THOUSANDS of copyrights and there's nobody you can sue... ahahahahahhahahhaaaa!

Try Grenada mark II

[KudyardRipling]

Watch this:

1. USA State Department prohibits travel to Antigua.
2. Grenada style invasion to change regime to drop case, manufactured consent to follow.
3. Sheeple don't care because they have their opiates (detached homes, SUV's, entertainment systems, vacations, 401k's, etc.)
(Any time is a) Good time to acquire multiple citizenships.

Drug laws are 'special'.

[FatSean]

We're expected to give up many rights in the 'war on drugs', so no, you can't bring your pot back. Of course, if you are suspected of pirating music, your house and car cannot be seized (and never seen again even if found innocent) like would happen were you caught growing pot.

Alcohol laws enable police to stop and search you at 'checkpoints' with no probably cause. The supreme court wasn't thinking much about the constitution the day they rubber stamped that anti-DUI tyranny.

Public opinion?

[yuna49]

"Think of this from the W.T.O.'s point of view," said Charles R. Nesson, a professor at Harvard Law School. "They're this fledgling organization dominated by a huge monster in the United States. People there must be scared out of their wits at the prospects of enforcing a ruling that would instantly galvanize public opinion in the United States against the W.T.O."

Can somebody tell me just what public opinion is going to be "galvanized" if the US loses here? Gambling opponents? The evidence suggests that they're probably outnumbered by people who like to gamble (just ask any state with a lottery). Supporters of protections for intellectual property rights? How big a group could that be?

Maybe he just means people would object if the US lost a case to a small country in the WTO? Why? For most Americans the WTO is a non-entity. Some strange notion of national pride (the US never loses)? If you set up a procedure for administrative proceedings you guarantee that someone will lose. Does anyone really expect the US to win every case it's involved with in international tribunals?

I just don't get this comment at all.

I was surprised to read that this case dates back to 2003. The only debate over Internet gambling that registered with me was the one this past year over prohibiting US financial institutions from transferring funds to offshore gambling sites. I'm definitely with Antigua on this one.

The Counter-Remedy

[einhverfr]

Add Antigua to the State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism?

Why?

It seems to be the only option they have left for their idea of pushing US law onto other countries.

In a related story...

[di0s]

The Pirate Bay asks for donations to buy the island of Antigua.

Vote for Ron Paul

[SonicSpike]

"Government is a hell of a scam."

ha - that is true. The only person who is able to get us out of this quagmire that is the US federal government, is US Rep Ron Paul who is running for President.

You should vote for Ron Paul

[SonicSpike]

You should vote for Ron Paul. Compare his donation list against that of any of the other candidates. Also compare his voting record against any of the other candidates. You will see that he votes against ANY bill that is unconstitutional and as President, will veto any bill that is unconstitutional as well.

That would put an end to most of this nonsense.

Are you a libertarian?

[SonicSpike]

Looks like you are a libertarian with the phrase "government has no business regulating this"

You should look into voting for Ron Paul. He is opposed to nonsense such as this.

Re:Are you a libertarian?

[Grishnakh]

I'm way ahead of you there; I've been following his campaign for a few months now. But thanks for the advice; I highly recommend other Americans interested in liberty, smaller government, no more unnecessary wars, and a balanced budget to look closely at Dr. Paul. He doesn't agree with me on every single issue, but he's close enough (far, far closer than any other politician), plus he seems to have something that every other Presidential hopeful lacks: integrity.

His main problem is that everyone in power is completely against him: the Republicans hate him (even though he's on the Republican ticket) because he votes against every big-government thing they try to do, and doesn't support their war, and the media hates him too and is doing its best to minimize his media exposure.

However, I've never seen so many campaign signs out in public, on people's cars, on public roads, etc., so far ahead of a Presidential election for a single candidate. Everywhere I go, I see Ron Paul '08 signs, in people's yards, on their bumpers, all over the internet, on roadside signs (where it's allowed to post campaign signs of course), etc. I do NOT see any signs for ANY other candidate right now; I don't see any enthusiastic group of people yelling about how great Hilary or Rudy is, I don't see any signs for Romney or McCain; there just doesn't seem to be much interest in the other candidates. This seems really significant to me. Even if Dr. Paul doesn't get on the Republican ticket for '08, I think this is going to be a very interesting election to watch.

Re:Are you a libertarian?

[SonicSpike]

Do you read http://ronpaulforums.com/ ?

Re:Are you a libertarian?

[Grishnakh]

No, but I am now. Thanks for the link!

You posted nothing dick, and you're wrong again

[SIIHP]

"Look, when you don't know anything about a subject you should keep quiet instead of proving yourself to be a fool."

And you should take your own advice cunt.

I posted a link to an analysis paper by the president of the federal reserve bank of St. Louis and two other well regarded economists. The best you could do was call it "old and poorly written", and you didn't refute a single point in it.

You posted NOTHING.

So how about you shut your idiot mouth now?

"Continuing after it's already been demonstrated is just silly."

You're right, but you decided to be a dick and attack me for proving you wrong anyway.

You lost, stop acting like a 4 year old and stamping your feet and screaming "YES HUH YES HUH!!!" when I posted proof and you posted fucking NOTHING.

Fuck off now.