Slashdot Mirror


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."

15 of 482 comments (clear)

  1. I am confussed by svendsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:I am confussed by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:I am confussed by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:I am confussed by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:I am confussed by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Re:Allowed? by Xylaan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  3. May Be Allowed? I think not... by TopShelf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  4. Re:Allowed? by bcmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  5. Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming by SomeJoel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
  6. What do the hope to win? by pokerdad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate. by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  8. Re:A Beautiful Thing Coming by lilomar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)?

    --
    The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  9. Re:WTO wont grant it. Antigua will capitulate. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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????
  10. Re:Goodbye, GPL by Garridan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Allofmp3 mark II is coming by alba7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.