WTO Rules on Internet Gambling Case

doggod writes "The Associated Press reports today that the WTO has finally ruled on Antigua's complaint against the US over online gambling. The complaints stems from what Antigua sees as unfair trade practices relating to the US passage last year of a law that forbids banks from handling money to and from online casinos. The amount they awarded is significantly less than Antigua asked for. If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?"

Comments

no

[OrangeTide]

If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA? IANAL, but don't count on it.

Re:no

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you acquire Antigua citizenship, even a lawyer will have to think hard:

http://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/ga/cedaw/17/country/Antigua/C-ANT1-3.EN

Ironclad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't we assuming that the US would respect the decisions of the WTO in supposing that we'd have a defense against infringement just because of a pesky international law we agreed to?

Somehow, I don't see that happening. I'm betting the **AA-holes would go after you, anyhow.

Re:Ironclad?

[sumdumass]

How would the RIAA go after you? None of the copyright laws right now pertain to getting something. IT is all with copying and distributing. And no, when someone offers something to you, you aren't copying it illegally when downloading it.

The RIAA could only come after you with anything that actually had grounds for if you took whatever you got and then gave it away or they manage to use this to get a law passed making downloading in and of itself illegal.

Re:Ironclad?

[cpt kangarooski]

IT is all with copying and distributing. And no, when someone offers something to you, you aren't copying it illegally when downloading it.

Yes you are, if it's not the copyright holder or someone authorized by him, who is permitting it. Downloaders infringe by reproducing works in copies, uploaders infringe by distributing (well, really by publicly performing or displaying, but this relatively minor technical issue hasn't been corrected yet, and usually doesn't matter).

Re:Ironclad?

[sumdumass]

The person giving it to you is authorizing it. You see, If I have something that is copyrighted, I can transfer that to someone else. If I transfer it to you, I have to get rid of all the copies I have. If I don't I am in violation, not you. Downloading isn't copying for the person who is downloading. It is for the person that offered the transfer.

You don't get busted for stealing when you goto the store and buy a pack of gum when it is later found that the store stole it from a warehouse somewhere.

Re:Ironclad?

[cpt kangarooski]

The person giving it to you is authorizing it.

So? That's as meaningful as if I declared myself King of the Moon.

The copyright holder has the exclusive right of reproduction. He can make more copies of the work, and he can authorize others to make more copies of the work. Otherwise, you cannot lawfully make more copies of the work for the duration of the copyright unless there is an applicable exception elsewhere in the law.

An ordinary person who merely possesses a copy of the work, however, cannot authorize anything with regard to the copyright (again, barring any applicable exception). His powers merely extend to the specific, tangible copy he possesses.

You see, If I have something that is copyrighted, I can transfer that to someone else.

Let's clean that up a bit: if you have a copy of a copyrighted work, you can (normally) convey that copy to someone else. The details are mainly in 17 USC 106 and 109. For example -- and remembering that the law defines a copy as a tangible object -- if you have a copy of a lawfully made Stephen King book, you can give that book to me. OTOH, if you cannot make a new copy and give that copy to me, since you're not allowed to make new copies, and you're not allowed to convey unlawfully made copies.

If I transfer it to you, I have to get rid of all the copies I have.

No, that is untrue. If you are giving me a copy, then necessarily, you're losing ownership, and probably possession, of that copy. But if you have two copies of the book, then you can just give me one, and keep the other. The issue is merely that if you're giving away a copy -- a specific tangible object in which the work is fixed -- then that copy gets given away.

I think that the thing you are failing to understand is that whenever the law uses the word 'copy' it means an object you can touch, and probably hold in your hand. The law clearly defines, at 17 USC 101, a copy as being a material object in which a work is fixed.

So a blank notebook is not a copy. When words are fixed into it, it becomes a copy. A paperback is a copy; the story within is a work. A CD is a copy; the music and sound recording within is a work. A DVD is a copy; the audiovisual content within is a work. A computer's RAM or hard drive is a copy; the data stored within is a work.

Feel free to take a look at the law, but there is really no arguing this. That's how it is. The way that people informally call things copies is utterly irrelevant; only the legal definition matters for purposes of copyright law.

Downloading isn't copying for the person who is downloading. It is for the person that offered the transfer.

Wrong.

The law prohibits making a copy. If I download from you, I obviously am not receiving a copy; a tangible object such as a memory chip or disk cannot move across the Internet. Rather, your computer is reading out information to my computer, and my computer is writing it down, thereby creating a new copy. In other words, if there is a tangible object which, at time 0, did not contain a work, and at time 1, did contain a work, then that object has become a new copy.

What the law doesn't care about in the least little bit is the grand total of copies created. If Alice puts a lawfully made CD in her computer, then reads out the contents to Bob's computer, and Bob's computer faithfully writes down that information onto a disk, then Bob has created a new copy. If Alice disintegrates her CD, it still doesn't matter; what is illegal is making new copies, not adding to the number of copies in existence, and Bob did make a new copy.

Nor can you dispute who is responsible for what, once you agree -- as you must -- that an infringing copy has been made.

If someone is providing data for you to download, and you choose to download it, then you are the person making a new copy. No one forced your computer to do it against your will; you initiated the process and caused it to happen. The courts have never had an

Re:Ironclad?

[sumdumass]

So? That's as meaningful as if I declared myself King of the Moon.

Only if you are too dense to realize that every action has a set of ordered steps that need to happen to make it an action. When I distribute something, I need copies. Now if the person I am giving it to makes the copies, then I am not copying it and hence cannot distribute it illegally. And this is independent of the copyright holders right to control the copies or distribution. They don't have an absolute right, the first sale and fair use principles limit the scope of that.

The copyright holder has the exclusive right of reproduction. He can make more copies of the work, and he can authorize others to make more copies of the work. Otherwise, you cannot lawfully make more copies of the work for the duration of the copyright unless there is an applicable exception elsewhere in the law.

This doesn't come into play. You have one person claiming to be giving something that they have to another. That is what is known as a transaction. When downloading something, you are transferring possession, the person giving it to you is supposed to make sure they have the necessary permissions, or that they are protected by the first sale doctrine and deleting it, not the person receiving it. This is no different then going to a store and buying music only to find out later that they had been copying it illegally. While you might not have a right to the music anymore, You still broke the law.

To date no one has been sued or arrested for downloading only. It is only the people distributing it. Why is that when you are so sure? Because you are wrong, that's why.

An ordinary person who merely possesses a copy of the work, however, cannot authorize anything with regard to the copyright (again, barring any applicable exception). His powers merely extend to the specific, tangible copy he possesses.

Ahh, so you get it. If an ordinary person, not the kind or queen you want to make them, represents themselves as having the ability to copy and distribute something, then they are breaking the law not you when you receive it. Do you understand how that works? If the store selling illegal copies of music sells you something, the store broke the law, not you.

Let's clean that up a bit: if you have a copy of a copyrighted work, you can (normally) convey that copy to someone else. The details are mainly in 17 USC 106 and 109. For example -- and remembering that the law defines a copy as a tangible object -- if you have a copy of a lawfully made Stephen King book, you can give that book to me. OTOH, if you cannot make a new copy and give that copy to me, since you're not allowed to make new copies, and you're not allowed to convey unlawfully made copies.

Yes, and that is exactly the principle behind this. If you gave me the book in electronic form, I have to assume that you are a law abiding person who is going to give me the copy of the book and not make copies and retain them to give to someone else. So If I downloaded the E-book from your site and it removes itself as I downloaded it, we would be within the law. But if my downloading made a copy and you retained possesion of a copy, one of us is in a violation. Now, Only the you have access to determine how your server functions and only you can determine if my download actually moves the file from you to me or if it makes a copy. The person with the server giving it away is the person making the copy, My act of buying it or some other means of getting possession doesn't count as making the copy.

Following your logic, if the people at the store made a copy of the original illegally every time they sold one, I would be causing a copy to be made and therefor making the copy while they are only distributing it. That is so asinine that is isn't funny. Just follow the logic and you know that your wrong.

No, that is

Re:Ironclad?

[cpt kangarooski]

When I distribute something, I need copies. Now if the person I am giving it to makes the copies, then I am not copying it and hence cannot distribute it illegally.

Personally, I would agree with you; the statute is clear that distribution is something that can only occur with regard to tangible objects. However, the courts have yet to correct their mistake here (in no small part because no one's made much of an effort to raise it). Not that this would change much, though, as it would just shift the analysis to one of public performance or display.

Anyway, though, following the existing precedents, it is possible for there to be distribution via a computer network where Alice has a copy, allows Bob to read that data, and Bob then creates a second copy. The Napster court was quite clear about this, and it's far from the only one.

They don't have an absolute right, the first sale and fair use principles limit the scope of that.

While fair use could apply in a generic file sharing situation, it likely wouldn't if you run through the analysis; the first three factors are against it to begin with, and the fourth is probably against it as well. First sale, meanwhile, only applies to the possession of lawfully made copies. You can sell or rent or lend or give away a lawfully made copy of a book, but it does not permit you to put the book on the Internet; that has nothing to do with you alienating that specific copy of the book.

When downloading something, you are transferring possession

No, because it is impossible to transfer anything over the Internet. Computers work by copying. When I install a program onto my computer from a disk, a new copy is made. When I run that program, it is copied into RAM, and parts of it are copied into the processor's own registers, cache, etc. If I have virtual memory, then another copy is being made there.

MAI v. Peak is the leading case on this subject. Basically, whenever anything at all is interacting with a computer, you can rely on copies being made, and those copies probably infringing. The statute is just written very poorly in this regard. It needs to be fixed, but until then, you're screwed.

To date no one has been sued or arrested for downloading only. It is only the people distributing it. Why is that when you are so sure? Because you are wrong, that's why.

I remember when no one was being sued for uploading; it wasn't that long ago.

The reason that there aren't currently suits against people who only downloaded is not legal, it's tactical: they're difficult to track down! Uploaders, OTOH, advertise their presence, and are thus easier to catch. Additionally, it is more efficient to go for the head of the snake, as it were. This is why the first suits were against the developers of the software and maintainers of networks, trackers, etc. Then we began to see suits against uploaders. The idea was that if Napster -- a single target -- could be taken down, users would lack the ability to pirate so much, and so it would be like getting a bunch of additional victories for free. If you go after an uploader, then it has a similar but lesser effect; other uploaders are either frightened into stopping or swamped with traffic, and either way, there's less of an opportunity for the more numerous downloaders to do anything. But if you just sue a downloader, it doesn't take out anyone else as well, making them the least valuable target to pursue.

Legally, though, it's easy as pie. RIAA, MPAA, et al have not had to exert themselves, you know. It's probably futile, but it's not difficult for them to win these cases.

If an ordinary person, not the kind or queen you want to make them, represents themselves as having the ability to copy and distribute something, then they are breaking the law not you when you receive it. Do you understand how that works? If the store selling illegal copies of music sells you something, the store broke the law, not you.

That's right, if we ignore

cue "politics as usual"

[darthfracas]

can't wait for the current administration to take its ball and go home because people can do what they want with their money. Bill Frist got the provision into the port security bill for two reasons... 1)he knew it would pass no matter what was in it, and 2)Harrah's is one of his largest donors. translation, "play poker in our card rooms, or you can't play at all."

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[Best ID Ever!]

Except that Harrah's is pro online gambling. Most of the major casinos want to extend their brand online.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[Anonymous Coward]

people can do what they want with their money

We're talking about the most expensive, most powerful, most lucrative government in history. This is barely a drop in the bucket for the elite few at the top of this business.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[KDR_11k]

Doesn't the bill only block transfers to foreign online casinos?

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[sm62704]

What I can't figure out is why the federal government is involved with gambling. Gambling is legal in many states; we have horse tracks and casinos here in Illinois.

I prefer Las Vegas casinos, though, because hookers are legal.

And speaking of gambling, I'd not gambled in a casino since a couple of buddies talked me into going to Nevada when I was stationed in California in the USAF in 1975. So last summer I went to the riverboat, and the new electronic slot machines SUCK! Boring as hell. You young folks don't know what you missed back when they had mechanical one armed bandits.

First time I've seen a computerized anything and wished for the mechanical version.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[Belial6]

I'm pretty sure that hookers are illegal in Las Vegas. They are not illegal in Nevada, but my understanding was that the cities had laws against prostitution in the city itself.

And yes, slot machines are a tactile experience. Without the hand to pull, and the coins dropping out, I might as well sit at home pushing my spacebar.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[truthsearch]

The ban relates to money being transfered offshore. It has nothing to do with gambling on US soil.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[Best ID Ever!]

No. It blocks transfers that will be used for "illegal online gambling", but it defers to current federal and state laws as to what is illegal. For instance, offering sports betting across state lines is illegal under the Wire Act, except some interstate horse racing betting is legal under a later law. Then there's a hodgepodge of state laws to contend with.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[Best ID Ever!]

It applies to all "illegal online gambling", US or otherwise.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[truthsearch]

No, it applies to the offshore transfer of money to casinos. It has nothing to do with the legality of gambling.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[sumdumass]

The federal government is involved because it deals with interstate commerce. And it does so in a way that can circumvent the different state's existing laws. Currently, gambling is handled state by state. But when you make it available in a state that banns it, you are violating that states laws accept you haven't entered that state to be punished. The Feds put a thing in the wire something laws making it illegal to do something like this. Later, they banned the transfer of funds to illegal gambling so that residents of Ohio couldn't go on line and gamble in Nevada. Now, you actually have to go where the gambling is legal if you want to gamble.

It sounds silly, but if there ever was something that interstate commerce clause was supposed to be used for, it would be this. Even if you don't agree with what the Feds are doing, this is exactly what their power to get involved was created for.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[Red Flayer]

I prefer Las Vegas casinos, though, because hookers are legal.

You might find that the police in LV have a different idea about that.. you'd need to leave the city limits.

Or so I've heard.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[Best ID Ever!]

Here is the text itself (at the end of the safe ports act). It says nothing about "offshore" transfers. It applies to transfers for all instra-state illegal gambling. It doesn't specify what is illegal, it simply defers to current law.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[truthsearch]

The last section is called "INTERNET GAMBLING IN OR THROUGH FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS".

But after reading the whole thing, I don't understand how this shut down all offshore financial transfers related to gambling. Every company I knew of (both online casinos and simple transaction services that affiliated with them) declared that dealing with US citizens was now illegal due to this act. I'm confused.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[Best ID Ever!]

The act essentially did two things:
1) Made it illegal for anyone to accept a deposit to be used for illegal gambling
2) Required bank regulations to be drafted to stop such deposits from being transferred

So if someone is breaking the law by gambling at your site, then you are breaking the law by accepting their deposit.

Whether or not someone is gambling illegally is difficult to determine, given the patchwork of state laws and unclear applicability of the Wire Act, so everyone who wants to stay within the law is acting on the side of caution.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[truthsearch]

Thanks a lot for the explanation. I had been using an offshore casino and an offshore financial transfer company. So my guess, based on your explanation, would be they were afraid of the new legal implications of this act due to the old Wire Act that (potentially) made the online gambling illegal.

Thanks again.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[z-j-y]

I disagree. The author of the interstate commerce clause could have never envisioned e-commerce. I'd say that that clause was not intended for the virtual trade form we have today, and anyone interpreting it with new meanings are just making stuff up. Not that it is news. If Fed can argue that I couldn't grow some plants in my backyard because it could influence national market (?!), and people in this country accept that kind of argument, internet regulation by Fed is of course apparently justified.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[stfvon007]

Prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas and Reno. It is legal everywhere else in the state as far as I know.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[sumdumass]

Lol.. I agree with your premise even though you aren't seeing thing for what they are. E-comerce, in the sense of Internet gambling is allowing a state, citizen or corporation of a state to circumvent the laws of another state without making the citizen/entity of the other state goto where it is legal.

What your talking about when you said the part that "they made a stretch of the clause" with the plants growing is true. Unless you intend to sell them in another state or outside the country. The interstate commerce act was added to be an arbiter between states when things like this happened. Also E-gambling isn't a "might influence a national market" situation. It is commerce between the citizen of one state and a citizen or company of another if it crosses state lines. This is why they can't do anything within a state. Just when it crosses state lines. and that is the direct definition of interstate commerce and the reason behind the interstate commerce clause.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[cpt kangarooski]

The author of the interstate commerce clause could have never envisioned e-commerce.

E-commerce is not fundamentally different. There was nothing preventing a person in 1787 from writing a letter to a bookstore on the Amazon, asking whether they had a copy of 'Common Sense'; getting a response in the affirmative; writing another letter saying that you want to buy it using a valid payment method and have it shipped to you; and having that occur.

That would inarguably be foreign commerce, and be subject to regulation by Congress.

The Internet is just faster, is all.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[Maxo-Texas]

A better way to put it is, hookers are "illegal" in Las Vegas.

You can't walk two feet without some poor guy flipping cards with hot girls numbers who will come to your hotel room for a private show.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading your explanation of how the US Federal Government was given power to handle cases exactly like this makes it clear to me that the model used to govern the United States of America is old, obsolete and broken. Look at how sales tax works in the USA: it is decided at a county level. So shopping for food can be 8% cheaper by driving 2 miles, just because there's no tax. And on the Internet, it is part of the ritual of online shopping to find a place that will sell you what you want without paying sales tax. The response from the US government? Try and find a way to enforce local (county) taxes. Give it up already! The confederation of states was appropriate for the 18th and 19th century, but for the late 20th century and beyond, the model is quickly becoming obsolete and making the USA look medievel.

This is the 21st century and it is a time where borders are coming down everywhere. Look at how Europe has evolved with the EU, EC and Euro.

Further to this, we have free trade agreements.

Everywhere people are talking about and looking at ways to integrate with each other more effectively and more easily. But then there are issues such as this gambling problem with the USA.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[jeff4747]

You actually have to cross the county line.

Or so I've heard.

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[jonwil]

If you want to see a clear example of how North America and Europe are vastly different, look at the rules they put in place that basically removed border checks within the EU. You can cross from France into Germany into Austria into Italy and back into France again (or whatever) without having your identity credentials examined anywhere along the way. (If only the British would overcome their snobbery and opposition to the scheme and sign on to it)

On the other hand, the US is making it even HARDER for people from the US to go to Canada and vice versa

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[tony1343]

He is referring to Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn/) and Gonzales v. Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich/) if you have any interest in learning about the commerce clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause/).

These cases delineate what has been described as the outer boundaries of the commerce clause. Obviously the drafters of the Constitution didn't envision the internet. The Constitution is written fairly vaguely; intentionally so I believe to get it passed. I'm hoping they realized things would change with time though.

Regulating internet gambling seems to be a trivial use of the Commerce Clause, which actually literally fits within the language (as opposed to the expansion of the Clause during the New Deal and after to thing "affecting interstate commerce," etc).

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[sm62704]

Oh well, Canada is closer anyway. I hear hookers are legal there... are they?

What's a fuckless nerd who wants to be a law abiding citizen to do? Damn it, hookers provide a valuable service to society!

Re:cue "politics as usual"

[ShieldW0lf]

Oh well, Canada is closer anyway. I hear hookers are legal there... are they?

No, they're not. Well, hooking is legal, but soliciting is not. It is the speaking of the words of an agreement that are illegal, regardless of the act.

That said, you can find escort agencies aplenty in the Yellow Pages or the newspaper, and they're all whores. Used to be our number two crank calling target when I was a kid, right after churches.

nahhh

[superwiz]

It's a token victory. It just means that that if they do sell mp3 without paying royalties, US won't be able to use WTO to impose sanctions on them. But US doesn't need WTO to impose sanctions. It can just do it. I am not a lawyer.

Re:nahhh

[Necrotica]

It's a token victory. It just means that that if they do sell mp3 without paying royalties, US won't be able to use WTO to impose sanctions on them. But US doesn't need WTO to impose sanctions. It can just do it. I am not a lawyer.

"Can" implies legal right. But make no mistake, the US WILL just do it.

Re:nahhh

[meringuoid]

It's a token victory. It just means that that if they do sell mp3 without paying royalties, US won't be able to use WTO to impose sanctions on them. But US doesn't need WTO to impose sanctions. It can just do it.

The US doesn't need the WTO to impose sanctions, no. But if it does so then it's blatant protectionism of American gambling and copyright industries against Antiguan competition. The EU and Japan have both been making pro-Antiguan noises in this dispute, and if the US decides to try some form of economic bullying on Antigua, then it's possible that Europe and Japan might step in. The US is rich and powerful, but not so rich that it will risk a devastating trade war with Europe when the dollar's already on the slide, over a few gambling sites and pirate havens in the Caribbean.

Re:nahhh

[Mr. Underbridge]

...if the US decides to try some form of economic bullying on Antigua, then it's possible that Europe and Japan might step in. The US is rich and powerful, but not so rich that it will risk a devastating trade war with Europe when the dollar's already on the slide, over a few gambling sites and pirate havens in the Caribbean.

That's true, but what does 'step in' mean? Would that imply a stern lecture? The US won't care. Would it imply an escalating tarrif war? Europe/Japan wouldn't risk playing that card for a fight that's not even theirs. No way do they break out the economic 'nuclear option' in defense of Antigua when they would be harmed as much as the US.

That's the problem with these treaty organizations: they only work to keep the small fries in line. If the biggest kid decides to break the rules...who gets him back in line?

Re:nahhh

[jedidiah]

You are deepling confused.

This isn't "protectionism". This is moral meddling. The US wants the ability to
control who gambles on what where. They don't have that ability with a foreign
company. This isn't "protectionism". It's simply a reflection of the fact that
in this area the US is "attempting to legislate morality".

It does this in a very byzantine fashion.

The same goes for other forms of "vice" like alchohol or sex.

Try talking to a small US vineyard trying to sell to customers in other States.

The extreme reaction here is just an excuse for mindless US bashing. Some people
have found their gift wrapped excuse and by golly they're going to use it.

Re:nahhh

[Best ID Ever!]

The EU and Japan have both been making pro-Antiguan noises in this dispute, and if the US decides to try some form of economic bullying on Antigua, then it's possible that Europe and Japan might step in.

Actually the EU and Japan just wanted trade concessions, which is their right since the US withdrew entirely from the gambling agreement. The US announced deals with the EU, Japan, and Canada earlier this week. The EU got some shipping concessions and warehousing concessions, with the main benefactor being DHL -- so basically FedEx and UPS got thrown under the bus for the online gambling ban.

Unless something else happens, the US got off relatively unscathed from this. There were predictions that between Antigua sanctions and trade concessions it could cost the US as much as $100 billion.

Re:nahhh

[meringuoid]

Would it imply an escalating tarrif war? Europe/Japan wouldn't risk playing that card for a fight that's not even theirs. No way do they break out the economic 'nuclear option' in defense of Antigua when they would be harmed as much as the US.

If the fight really wasn't ours, I'd say you were right; Europe would leave Antigua out to dry. But Antigua's not the only country troubled by America's protectionist gaming laws. There are plenty of European betting sites that would love a piece of that action. Right now they're being made unwelcome.

From TFA, it looks like Europe has accepted some unspecified concessions for accepting a change in the WTO treaty rules. But as I read it, that isn't yet in force, and would only change the process by which compensation is claimed, not whether or not a claim is viable. So it might still be on the cards that the EU might back Antigua. There's a lot of money to be made if we can get America to stop locking up legitimate British casino owners.

Re:nahhh

[Hatta]

No, "may" implies legal right. "Can" merely implies capability. "Will" implies certainty, which is a little premature right now.

Re:nahhh

[jahudabudy]

"Can" implies ability, "may" implies permission.

Re:nahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirate havens in the Caribbean... Some things just never change. Arrrr, matey!

Re:nahhh

[1001011010110101]

Actually, you are wrong. The problem is that the US allows some local online gambling, while not allowing the same to outside countries. If the US was to actually ban all forms of online gambling,it would be ok. What they cannot do, is to discriminate against other countries like they do with Antigua.

Re:nahhh

[mi]

The same goes for other forms of "vice" like alcohol or sex. Try talking to a small US vineyard trying to sell to customers in other States.

I was once dumbfounded by it being illegal for me to buy a bottle of wine in Massachusetts on Sunday. As I stood there arguing with the cashier, a girl behind me in line (in early twenties, seemingly "progressive", and without a Bible under her arm) expressed her support for the law. It went something like: "Yeah, it is a good idea for there being one day a week, when buying alcohol is illegal. I like it."

She could not explain why and shut up, when I suggested, she avoids sex on Thursdays. But I remain puzzled, how a modern American can see fit to impose arbitrary and gratuitous limitations on others without a good and easily explainable reason.

Re:nahhh

[Best ID Ever!]

Try talking to a small US vineyard trying to sell to customers in other States.

SCOTUS recently struck down state laws prohibiting protectionism against out-of-state vineyards if in-state vineyards are allowed to sell directly to consumers.

This case is protectionism, pure and simple. Allowing multi-state lotteries, betting on horse racing, and betting on fantasy sports while denying other forms of gambling is not morally consistent with an anti-gambling position.

Re:nahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

>The US is rich

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock

Re:nahhh

[__aagmrb7289]

What they cannot do, is to discriminate against other countries like they do with Antigua. They CAN'T? Where is this written, and how is it enforced? And why doesn't it apply universally - cause I sure hope you understand that it does NOT apply to all similar situations, and to other countries outside the United States....

Re:nahhh

[sumdumass]

I don't understand where this ban is. All countries like antigua need to do is get permission in each state they wish to operate in just like every one else who want to operate on line and regular casinos.

I'm not sure why that isn't acceptable. They can compete in each market within the US that allows competition.

Re:nahhh

[jrumney]

If the US unilaterally imposes sanctions because they don't like the WTO's ruling, then the WTO will just keep increasing the punishment.

Re:nahhh

[bigdavex]

This isn't "protectionism". This is moral meddling. The US wants the ability to
control who gambles on what where. They don't have that ability with a foreign
company. This isn't "protectionism". It's simply a reflection of the fact that
in this area the US is "attempting to legislate morality".

For this explanation to work, we have to buy that someone really believes that betting on horse races and lotteries is more moral than betting on sports, poker, or roulette. And that's a pretty tough sell to anyone with an ounce of skepticism. Yes, they want to control who gambles on what where. But why? Because there's a lot of money in exercising this control. Oh, and there also temporary allies who want to prohibit all of it.

There's even a specific exception for gambling within a state:

(B) INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS- The term `unlawful Internet gambling' does not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where--
`(i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively within a single State;

Now you could fairly argue that the Feds don't have the authority to restrict commerce within a state. But they do seem to find their way around that when properly motivated. From the perspective of the offshore sites, the UIGEA explicitly forbids foreign competition. The US doesn't have uniform laws throughout the country and that's OK, but it doesn't really get the government off the hook here.

I think what we have here is moral meddling combined with specifically targeted protectionism through political influence bought with campaign contributions.

Re:nahhh

[bigdavex]

I screwed up my link.

UIGEA

Re:nahhh

[sethstorm]

But US doesn't need WTO to impose sanctions. It can just do it. They could always just take over the country.

Re:nahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy, local customs. People like living in communities that share customs. Don't like it, change the law, and by extension the community or move.

That is why you have freedom of movement. You can go live any place you find pleasant. That is also why the Fed should stay out of legislating morality, most citizens are stuck here, and can't move to a place with more agreeable customs/community.

Re:nahhh

[mi]

Easy, local customs. People like living in communities that share customs.

Nope, that's an invalid argument. A couple of centuries ago, it was a "local custom" to burn witches in this same state.

That is also why the Fed should stay out of legislating morality

Nobody should be legislating morality based on this example. Nobody. The argument you are applying to "the Fed" vs. the State, can just as easily be applied to the State vs. the town.

Re:nahhh

[cpt kangarooski]

Nope, that's an invalid argument. A couple of centuries ago, it was a "local custom" to burn witches in this same state.

No, first, it was about three centuries ago, not two. Second, they were usually hanged; I don't think that any witches in Massachusetts were ever burned. Third, it's not a state, it's a commonwealth (though that didn't happen until well after the era of witch trials; for example, during the Salem witch trials, it was a province).

Also, IIRC, you can buy wine on Sunday afternoons. I've never really cared enough to look into it.

Re:nahhh

[Ajehals]

In answer to you question, no legally they can't, the US is a signatory to a treaty (well a number of treaties) which prevents them acting in this manner, that's kind of the whole point of this story. It does not apply to all similar situations, as I understand it it would not apply if the US were objecting to something on moral grounds, as some other nations may have done.IIRC nor would it apply if there were some sort of legal sanctions (i.e. not some unilateral US trade sanctions imposed without agreement from some suitable international body).

At the end of the day however, the US benefits from these treaties, they should at least try to abide by them rather than crying foul whenever something doesn't go their way.

Re:nahhh

[mi]

Corrections skipped

Also, IIRC, you can buy wine on Sunday afternoons. I've never really cared enough to look into it.

You can now. You could not only a few years ago — until the 2004. Liquor stores were simply closed, stores offering both wines and foods (like Trader's Joe) weren't selling the wine-stock (just as I describe). Often they had the alcohol section completely blocked on Sundays, but not always, which lead to the confusion that I describe.

Re:nahhh

[1001011010110101]

The US signed treaties, and usually got something in exchange (like access to markets). US is allowed to sell to other markets in conditions it woudn't have otherwise, that's why you MUST. Enforcement is as easy as removing you access to markets, giving you higher tariffs in your exports, etc.

Re:nahhh

[1001011010110101]

Actually, they dont get access to those market and that's the problem.

Re:nahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

The US reached deals with EU and Japan about one week before the Antigua ruling. The deals pretty much neutralize any threat in this regard. It's a done deal.

The only other countries that haven't agreed to deals are India, Costa Rica, and another small island nation but they, thus far, haven't demonstrated willingness to step up to the plate and take the US on.

Re:nahhh

[BgJonson79]

Easy. Mass sucks. The cool states have roadside liquor stores that help pay for education on the backs of our neighboring states' vices.

Re:nahhh

[BathTub]

"But how will we celebrate communion!"

Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot editors inserting crap about the RIAA in everything now?

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[edward2020]

WRTFA (Without Reading the Fucking Article), I'd say nothing at all. There are international conventions concerning IP and its protection, which seems to indicate that this, indeed, has nothing to do with the RIAA. In this matter the US is engaging in unfair trade practices - in effect protecting American casinos from competition from oversees online gaming. It would be different if all gambling was illegal - but it's not.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

WRTFA (Without Reading the Fucking Article), I'd say nothing at all.

Try it some day. Part of the "relief" provided by the WTO to Antigua is the right to ignore US copyrights (given that international enforcement of copyright laws is based on treaties backed by the WTO, they have the power to do this).

I suspect that anyone in the US downloading mp3s from Antigua will be "shocked" to discover that this only covers people in Antigua, not them.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

If a US citizen purchases mp3s from an Antiguan website they are obtaining legal copies of the music. The WTO trumps the Berne Convention. I doubt that would stop the RIAA trying to go after people though.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[meringuoid]

I suspect that anyone in the US downloading mp3s from Antigua will be "shocked" to discover that this only covers people in Antigua, not them.

Agreed; if I'm in the US and download an mp3 from an Antiguan server, I'm creating a copy on my PC in the US, in violation of applicable copyright laws. But what if someone sets up a mail order shop in Antigua? Request an album, any album by a US artist, and it gets burned and mailed to you for a dollar. Then the customer hasn't violated anybody's copyright - he hasn't copied anything at all. The operator hasn't violated anybody's copyrights either - US copyrights don't apply in Antigua. So, no foul, play on!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the mere possession of unauthorised copies is not illegal - only their creation and sale. That's why it's called copyright, the right to copy.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[WaltBusterkeys]

Before you go out and buy a crate of CD-Rs, it's also illegal to import unlicensed copyrighted material and can be seized on import. See, for example, the Berne convention.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[ThePlague]

Then how about sell a subscription service where you can stream any song you want anytime you want from Antiguan servers? The songs are stored there, so you're not making a copy. Unless, of course, you copy the stream, or "circumvent" their stringent protections against copying songs directly. Wink wink, nod nod.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[just_another_sean]

Then how about sell a subscription service where you can stream any song you want anytime you want from Antiguan servers? The songs are stored there, so you're not making a copy. Unless, of course, you copy the stream, or "circumvent" their stringent protections against copying songs directly. Wink wink, nod nod. Isn't streaming it in effect making a copy though? In RAM if nothing else? I'm not saying that's right or that all streams leave a "copy" on your PC but I can see it being spun that way.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[ThePlague]

Well, yes, in a sense, but I thought that in at least one case, it was determined that "copies" in volatile RAM were not considered the same as copies saved to permanent media. IANAL, though, and given the judicial process, I'm sure that determination has gone both ways.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[sumdumass]

The WTO doesn't trump the berne convention. It is only additional to it except where it specifically contradict is.

However, even under the berne convention, if you obtain copyright protected material, even music, from a source that it legitimate, or appears to be legitimate, you aren't not in violations. US law specifically deal with copying and distributing, not obtaining or possessing. When you get a copy of something from what you consider a legal source, you are not help liable with that respect. So yes, you are correct even if for different reasons then you thought.

As a side not, I'm sure the **ia's will attempt to use this as some way to get the law changed and make you responsible for the legitimacy of every copyright protected item that you posses.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[hey!]

By that argument looking at a book creates a copy because there is an image of it on your retina. Or playing a copyrighted song creates a copy encoded in pressure waves radiating from the speaker.

It seems to me that a copy of a work must be a thing in itself, not a transitory phenomenon. Of course there is no perfect line between the two categories, but intent makes a difference. What is the difference between the bits of an MP3 stored in a file and the same bits in RAM? The RAM may in fact bet swapped out to a disk file. The difference is intent. Files are intended to be enduring, unless the user intervenes; memory caches are intended only to smooth playback and their contents are replaced without user intervention.

It is conceivable that I could play a song in a virtual machine, then suspend that virtual machine, which would result in the entire address space of the machine being written to disk. I could then burn the entire virtual machine to read only media, with the intent of being able to replay that song by restoring the virtrual machine to the state it was in at the very point it was playing the song. It'd be an extremely awkward way to commit copyright infringement, but it would still be an infringement because my intent was creating a fixed copy.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[sumdumass]

You don't make an illegal copy when you download something. The process doesn't go, entire file is transfered to you then copied then back to the server. The server makes the copy if the file stays put. Now, If I offer you something protected by a copyright, it is my obligation to ensure I give you everything concerning the copyright. When I keep a copy on my server after you download it, I am the one copying it not you. This is because I offered it to you and failed to give up my claim to it as the copyright insists.

Where this differs is when using something like bittorrent or some other P2P program where the process of you having or getting the file ends up with you giving it to other people. You are then copying and distributing it. But don't let them fool you. Simply downloading something is not you making the copy if they presented it to you to download. It is them not following through on their obligations to transfer the entire copy to you.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[WaltBusterkeys]

Nobody can access the light projected on your retina, it's not a fixed copy. Nor are pressure waves a fixed means of expression. They are also transitory.

RAM is a question in the courts. The Ninth Circuit long ago held that RAM is a fixed copy for the purpose of copyright. See a description of the case, MAI v. Peak.

Intent doesn't matter in this area, unfortunately. It might under some kind of Universal Principles of Justice, but Congress didn't write the law that way.

Re:Exactly what does this have to do with RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody can access the light projected on your retina

Two points:

1) Nobody includes me, so unless everyone, including me, is blind, at least one person can access the light projected onto my retina (namely me)
2) Opticians have this odd idea of shining light onto your retinas when you go for an eye test, and then looking at the reflections of that projected light. Opticians seem to be doing the impossible (according to you)...or are Nobody...

you're surely cracked

[Speare]

If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?

This has got to be a joke. The concept of "unclean hands" is not applicable on an international policy-and-treaty basis. One cannot ignore the rule of one treaty because another country ignores the rule of another treaty. Even though the US Constitution ranks the treaty as being the supreme law of the land (theoretically above anything the executive, legislative or judiciary can do), this does not apply to whether or not you can legitimately grab a copy of Britney's latest dance video without concern for authority.

Re:you're surely cracked

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it means Antigua can charge you 99 cents for said song.

Re:you're surely cracked

[meringuoid]

Even though the US Constitution ranks the treaty as being the supreme law of the land (theoretically above anything the executive, legislative or judiciary can do), this does not apply to whether or not you can legitimately grab a copy of Britney's latest dance video without concern for authority.

I've said elsewhere that it will probably still be illegal for US citizens to download mp3s from Antigua - it's just the Antiguans who will no longer be committing an offence. But it could still make you invulnerable to attacks from the RIAA in a practical rather than a legal sense. Encrypted connection to server in Antigua, transfer music direct from vast central database, no P2P involved. Then the RIAA can't even begin to find out who's using the service.

The bandwidth costs would be high, so it would have to be subscription-only. A well-resourced adversary might be able to follow the money, but small Caribbean island nations tend to be discreet about such things.

Re:you're surely cracked

[geminidomino]

Yeah, but what we may see is a resurgence of the old HTTP/NNTP/FTP warez servers hosted in Antigua, which would cause problems to the MAFIAA's method of abusing the system by claiming that P2P services include "making available"....

Re:you're surely cracked

[SEE]

Even though the US Constitution ranks the treaty as being the supreme law of the land (theoretically above anything the executive, legislative or judiciary can do) Your parenthetical is completely wrong. Treaties are not necessarily any more the "supreme law of the land" than any other law of the United States. The supremacy law privileges the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States over the laws of the states, but it does not (clearly) rank treaties over laws. (It reads: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")

Since the Constitution in its text does not (clearly) privilege treaties over laws, we have to look to the interpretation in the courts of the clause to see how laws and treaties interact. The interpretation in the courts is that laws and treaties are equal, and a ordinary act of Congress can repeal a treaty.

But, even if we assume that treaties do outrank laws, it still doesn't matter in this case. Under the Constitution, a treaty requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. The United States Senate did not ratify the Uruguay Round GATT by a two-thirds majority; instead, both houses of Congress adopted it by majority vote as an ordinary law. So the WTO and trade rules pursuant to it are either in effet as ordinary laws in the U.S. (if the Uruguay Round GATT could be adopted as ordinary legislation, which is the traditional interpretation of the courts), or they are of no legal force (under the minority view that it must be adopted through the treaty procedure to have force).

Re:you're surely cracked

[Hatta]

I'm no expert on international law, but what law would I be breaking if I downloaded royalty free MP3s from antigua? Or to start a little simpler, what if someone went to antigua, burned a bunch of physical copies of discs, and sent them to me? AFAIK, copyright law merely restricts the activity of copying. Since the copying is done in Antigua where it's legal, US law won't apply. I don't know of any law against possessing or shipping unlicensed copies, so importation of the copy should be legal too. I would be in the clear as far as US law is concerned. How does all this change if the disks are transported via the internet instead of the post office?

Re:you're surely cracked

[Bartab]

Even though the US Constitution ranks the treaty as being the supreme law of the land (theoretically above anything the executive, legislative or judiciary can do)

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE.

Are you really so insane that you would think our founding fathers would write text that means "The President in collusion with the majority of the senate can pass a law that not only overrides previous actions but cannot be overridden by anything short of a constitutional amendment".

Roosevelt only would have needed to sign a treaty with Timbuktu to eliminate term limits. Imagine what Bush could do, or at least could have done before 2006. I suspect Chavez would be happy to sign the "No Voting Anymore" Treaty.

No, Sorry. Go back to civics class. The supremacy clause in fact places treaties at the exact same power as any other law passed by congress. Which mean roughly "last passed, most relevant". A treaty can change prior law, but likewise a congressional act can change how a treaty is enforced. In fact, the supremacy clauses whole purpose was to define treaties as superior to State laws and constitutions.

Furthermore, the supremacy clause only matters for treaties that are "self-enacting", which has fallen into extreme disfavor. Without self-enacting then in our system of gov't, Congress must pass enforcement laws before it's actually enforced upon the people. The DMCA is an example of one such law.

For point of relevance to this topic: The treaty that defined and entered the US into the WTO was not self-enacting.

Re:you're surely cracked

[Bartab]

The bandwidth costs would be high, so it would have to be subscription-only. A well-resourced adversary might be able to follow the money, but small Caribbean island nations tend to be discreet about such things.

If it was so easy to get money to them, then they wouldn't care about the law -now-. Antiguan companies don't care that they're breaking US law by allowing American citizens to gamble (the citizens themselves are not breaking the law), they care that the law has made it harder for these citizens to play with money. As it gets more and more non-trivial to do so, the customers stop reloading their accounts.

Re:you're surely cracked

[jdjbuffalo]

I would like to quibble over one point on treaties vs. normal national laws. If you sign a treaty (assuming that it the whole treaty and not one broken into a thousand pieces, like some are) and then pass a law declaring one portion of that treaty to be illegal then the country is breaking the treaty and you could be held accountable by the other treaty members (this is all assuming that you don't also decide to pull out of the treaty). So in this sense the treaties would be a little more of a supreme law over the normal laws as you don't have this problem unless you're breaking the Constitution which is definitely a higher law.

Re:you're surely cracked

[XanC]

Interesting thought... And therefore, would the RIAA/MPAA have to prove that somebody's unlicensed copy was not made in Antigua?

Re:you're surely cracked

[cpt kangarooski]

Assuming you're in the US, it would be illegal.

International law is irrelevant; all that would matter here would be US copyright law, which governs what occurs in the US. (The Antiguans fall under Antiguan law, which would protect them in this matter, but not you)

Copyright applies to a number of different activities, but the two that are relevant here are reproduction and public distribution. Reproduction is the creation of a copy, and public distribution is the transfer of ownership or possession of a copy to members of the public. The key thing is that a copy is defined in the law as a tangible object in which a work is fixed. So, for example, if you create a poem and speak it aloud, but never write it down, it is not fixed, and there are no copies of it. If you write it down, the object upon which it is written is the copy (e.g. a piece of paper, or a computer disk).

When you download something, obviously, no tangible copies are coming down the wire. So clearly, no new copies that you receive are being made in Antigua. Only intangible information is. However, you are necessarily storing the downloaded data onto some sort of tangible medium, such RAM or a disk; thus, you're creating a new copy, i.e. reproducing. Furthermore, you're doing this in the US, where US law, rather than Antiguan law, applies. If US law says that you, a person in the US, cannot reproduce the work into a new copy in the US, then that's what you're stuck with; it doesn't matter what some foreign government says, since they cannot regulate what occurs here.

Now, if copies were made in Antigua (e.g. burned onto a CDR) and the copies were physically transported into the US (e.g. via the mail), then that would be importation, which is a kind of distribution. However, US law would prohibit that importation as an infringement of the US copyright holder's exclusive right to distribute in the US. There are some exceptions: e.g. if they had been made in the US, shipped to Antigua, and were now shipped back, that would be lawful; if they were made in Antigua in a manner that would have been lawful had US law applied there (i.e. if it was done with the permission of the US copyright holder) and you only imported one copy at a time for your own personal use and not for resale. (Most people forget that both 602(a) AND 602(b) apply, and that 602(a) exceptions don't affect the 602(b) prohibition!)

The ultimate result is that this is great if you are physically in Antigua, but otherwise basically irrelevant.

And why would anyone think...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that the US (especially the Bush administration) is going to even pay out a measly 21 million dollars a year? There's a certain arrogance on behalf of the US - to pay out on a ruling like this is akin to being pushed around.

Re:And why would anyone think...

[morgan_greywolf]

...that the US (especially the Bush administration) is going to even pay out a measly 21 million dollars a year? There's a certain arrogance on behalf of the US - to pay out on a ruling like this is akin to being pushed around. Because they have to or face WTO sanctions, that's why.

Re:And why would anyone think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like they were ordered to for softwood lumber? We know how that turned out.

Re:And why would anyone think...

[eebra82]

...that the US (especially the Bush administration) is going to even pay out a measly 21 million dollars a year? There's a certain arrogance on behalf of the US - to pay out on a ruling like this is akin to being pushed around. Because they have to or face WTO sanctions, that's why. As if the United States ever cared? We completely ignore the UN, so why not WTO? And it's not like WTO is the only one threatening the US with sanctions; the European Union has put some pressure on the US over this as well since it's sort of a multi billion dollar business over there as well.

The truth is that the current administration has had little concerns over foreign and domestic policy. And if something as utterly important as privacy or habeas corpus is thrown in the garbage, why would they even bother to pay Antigua? And more importantly, who the hell will stand up to the United States?

Re:And why would anyone think...

[meringuoid]

Or how they were ordered to for steel. We know how that turned out, too.

The difference being that the US's opponent in the steel case was the EU, whereas in the lumber case it was Canada; European retaliatory sanctions would have hurt. Which doesn't bode too well for Antigua, unless some big players decide to come in on their side. Europe actually might do just that; there are quite a few British gambling sites that would rather like access to the American market.

Then again, it remains to be seen how much Antigua's new status as a copyright free zone will hurt the US. A lot of media folk will scream. They own a lot of senators.

Re:And why would anyone think...

[Best ID Ever!]

That was a NAFTA case, and the US settled with Canada for several billion dollars.

Re:And why would anyone think...

[Best ID Ever!]

why would they even bother to pay Antigua?

The WTO doesn't work like that. Antigua gets to impose sanctions equivalent to the judgment (in this case, IP sanctions). Basically, Antiguans don't have to pay for music, movies, and software to the tune of $21 million per year.

Re:And why would anyone think...

[who's got my nicknam]

Um...it was a WTO ruling, and the 'several billion dollars' was actually money that the US had illegally taken from Canadian forestry companies as 'tariffs'. In the end, after thousands of workers had lost their jobs and declared bankruptcy, the US grudgingly agreed to return SOME of the money. I don't actually think we've seen it yet, though. And a fat lot of good it does to the businesses who aren't around anymore to get their money back. The simple fact is that Americans employ whatever protectionist methods they can to enrich their own companies. Anyone who trades with the US sees this on a daily basis, and believe me, we're all looking forward to the day when the global economy doesn't include US Dollars. As soon as some segment of the American economy complains, up go the tariffs, regardless of trade treaties. So we go to the WTO for a ruling, they say "Bad Americans, drop the tariffs", and the Americans stick out their tongues and give us the raspberry. The best thing that could happen is for the American dollar to weaken substantially so that their trade became totally undesirable...oh, wait a second! Now what needs to happen is for us to get a set of balls and stop sending our energy to the Americans, and sell it to other markets (ones that will treat us fairly, natch) instead. Oh, and we need to start fingerprinting and interrogating every American who crosses our borders as well, and maybe throw a few in jail just for kicks, and ban a few of their academics and actors from ever ever entering Canada. No more cheap Tmbits for you!!

Circular logic. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The office of the U.S. Trade Representative noted that Antigua was seeking sanctions worth more than three times the size of its entire economy.

"Antigua's claim was patently excessive," it said in a statement. "The United States is pleased that the figure arrived at by the arbitrator is over 100 times lower than Antigua's claim."

Yeah, but, the online gambling might've allowed Antigua's economy to grow 10 or 20 or 30 times it's current size. That's like saying it's unreasonable to increase a prisoner's rations from the crust of a slice of bread to 3 square meals a day because it's 10 times the food he's currently getting and it's excessive.

I'm no fan of gambling, but every time I see this gambling case in the news, I can see the obvious hypocrisy in play here. This is simply the US trying to protect the domestic gambling industry. If gambling were really that bad, the US would outlaw it altogether. But to say that it is legal for people to gamble here, but not with foreign operators, is simply disgusting.

Re:Circular logic. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

This is simply the US trying to protect the domestic gambling industry.

That may be one reason, but it's not that simple. For example credit card companies want to steer clear of online gambling, since a large amount of customers cry "fraud" when they hit a major loss.

Then there is the matter that offshore gaming sites don't fall under U.S. jurisdiction and there is no way for our officials to verify their legitimacy.

Then there are legislators who really and truly feel gambling is morally wrong, or are pandering to the "Think of the Children" Christians. They certainly don't want to make it as easy as turning on a computer. A sub section of these may be the "not in my backyard" crowd, who think it's okay as long as it's in Vegas or on a reservation, meaning as long as it's inconvenient it's a tolerable practice (They're the ones who pass laws that say a casino in their city has to be on a river, even if it's just a permanent structure that looks like a boat.)

And of course there is as you say the domestic gambling industry, which is very rich and powerful and would prefer we go to casinos rather than play at home (though they would certainly back any domestic gambling sites were they to be allowed, and don't think they don't have huge hand in the offshore businesses as well as Caribbean casinos.)

Re:Circular logic. . .

[oldenuf2knowbetter]

Gambling, real gambling in real brick and mortar casinos, is very heavily supervised and regulated by governments. They do this not simply to collect their share of the revenues, but because many (probably most) casinos prior to such supervision and regulation were busily fleecing their customers whenever and however possible. With such oversight, your chance of getting ripped-off by the casino is about zip.

Compare and contrast to online gambling where you have no way to know (and really, no reason to even believe) that the game is honest or that you'll collect if you win big.

While we frequently hear of some big winner in Las Vegas (think of the picture of some grinning stranger holding a check larger than he or she is made out for a zillion dollars), have you ever seen any such thing from an online casino? Me either. Know anybody who gambled online, won a pile of money and had a check show up in a few days? Me either.

Re:Circular logic. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"...simply disgusting." Disgusting? Dumb may be a better word. The US could find ways to make money by regulating this with casino lobbyists dictating it every step of the way. But nooooooooooooo! There are too many people not thinking outside the box. Disgusting? You haven't seen "Two girls, one cup". What is it? Its one of those Internet viral videos. If you haven't watched it or heard of it be thankful. Its something you and your family would want to avoid.

Re:Circular logic. . .

[Ciggy]

your chance of getting ripped-off by the casino is about zip

Surely that would depend upon your meaning of "ripped-off".

If by being ripped-off, you mean not being offered the correct odds, then all casinos are ripping you off. Take, for example, Roulette: the odds are worked out correctly if there were no zeros on the wheel; eg on a single number there the odds are 37 to 1 that the ball won't land on your number (36 numbers + 2 zeros), but you only get paid at 35 to 1. Your expectation at roulette is -5 5/19%, ie for every $1 you bet, in the long run you can expect to receive approx $0.95 back.

If by being ripped-off you mean being cheated, then yes. (Things like gaffed roulette wheels whereby the ball can be directed to avoid numbers, etc).

My advice if you must gamble in a casino: play Blackjack - the odds are constantly changing as each card is dealt and at times actually favour the player. (There is still a possibility of cheating with the dealing of the cards.)

I dunno...

[Otter]

If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?

Sorry, I only trust idiotic legal theories from New York Country Lawyer has weighed in to endorse them.

Um, What?...

[whisper_jeff]

If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?

Sorry, but what does that have to do with the the WTO, Antiqua, and the US ban on online gambling? And, if it does have anything to do with the topic(s) of the article (at work - busy - no time to read TFA right now), then it would be nice if the summary posted to /. made the connection clear so this statement didn't come completely out of left field...

Re:Um, What?...

[plague3106]

Well, you had time to post.. reading TFA wouldn't have taken much longer, and the answer IS there...

Re:Um, What?...

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

The relevant rule here is that the WTO can award damages, and one way they can do that is to allow Antigua to ignore US IP laws up to a certain value.

Re:Um, What?...

[ArhcAngel]

It's a pork barrel comment appended to an actual story.

You must be new here.

Re:Um, What?...

[Jtheletter]

Incorrect, in cases such as these rather than fining the country in question, one form of restitution is to allow the winning country (Antigua) to "take payment" in the form of ignoring copyrights of the losing country (US) up to a certain value. This is a broad summary of this practice, you'll have to look up details on your own time. ;)

Re:Um, What?...

[Frenchy_2001]

Antigua knew they could not really sanction the US in this dispute. The US illegally (as ruled now by the WTO) cut the ability for gamblers to play online abroad, while still allowing online play inside its borders, a clear cut protectionism. As retaliation, Antigua asked the WTO to clear them for copyright infringement on US products up to the value of $3 billions. The panel ruled for a smaller value of $21 Millions/year, but it still means that Antigua can legally infringe US copyrights and service up to that level every year.
Technically, the Antiguan government could print Hollywood DVDs and sell them for $1 each without paying any royalty and do so legally (up to the limit of $21 millions.

This is the reason the poster asked if this clears HIM to download from an Antiguan server.
It could actually be a great opportunity for someone to setup a itune/allofmp3 clone and sell music close to at cost while paying a part of the profit to the Antiguan government . This woulc be covered by this ruling and the US could not bother the WTO with it.

Re:Um, What?...

[cpt kangarooski]

Meh. My understanding of this is that Antigua would merely be relieved of its obligations to the US pursuant to TRIPS et al up to the limit awarded.

Remember, copyright is a national system, not an international one. There is no such thing as an international copyright. Rather, there are US copyrights, UK copyrights, Canadian copyrights, etc. Most countries are members of various treaties that state that when one member grants a copyright, the other members will also grant a copyright to the same applicant. So if Alice, an American, writes a book, she has a US copyright that applies within the US, and also (among other things) an Antiguan copyright that applies in Antigua.

Antigua no longer has to grant or respect US copyrights per this award, but that doesn't mean that US copyrights on those works don't still apply within the US! So if Alice is in the US, and Bob is in Antigua, Bob's government is letting him make all the copies of music he likes, and distribute them as he likes (again, up to the limits of the agreement). But Alice, in the US, is subject to US law, not Antiguan law. She can't download anything from Bob, since that would involve creating a copy in the US (copies, remember, are defined in the law as tangible objects in which the work has been fixed, and importation involves the moving of those tangible objects across borders; since Alice can't download a tangible object, when she downloads, she actually creates a new one: the medium she's writing to) which would still be illegal.

So if you want to benefit from this, you're going to need to go to Antigua. Otherwise it's pretty uninteresting.

Re:Um, What?...

[TempeTerra]

I never thought I'd want to mod an article summary "-1, Offtopic"

Re:Um, What?...

[jasonjacks0n]

Incorrect, in cases such as these rather than fining the country in question, one form of restitution is to allow the winning country (Antigua) to "take payment" in the form of ignoring copyrights of the losing country (US) up to a certain value.

That might protect Antigua, but has essentially zero to do with the WTO's decision being any defense against the the RIAA, ironclad or otherwise, for copyright-violating Americans.

Like GP said (humorously) - it's just one of those inflammatory leading questions /. likes to have at the end of article summaries..

WTO proves to have no teeth

[EOG.com]

From Eye On Gambling http://www.eog.com/

Antigua and Barbuda today expressed its mixed reaction to the ruling of the arbitrators issued today in its long running dispute with the United States over Internet gambling. The panel agreed with Antigua that it had no effective trade sanctions against the United States in the area of services and authorised Antigua to suspend its obligations to the United States in respect of copyrights, trademarks and other forms of intellectual property rights. However, it went on to set Antigua's level of annual trade loss at US $21.0 million, much less than the US $3.4 billion Antigua had requested, although considerably more than the US $500,000 the United States had proposed.

In an unprecedented approach that is sure to arouse controversy, the arbitrators assessed Antigua's level of damages based upon a hypothetical form of compliance proposed by the United States rather than through the withdrawal of the overall prohibition on the provision of remote gaming services. This decision resulted in a rare, perhaps unprecedented disagreement among the arbitrators, with one of the three panellists dissenting from the approach adopted by the other two members.

Mark Mendel, the lawyer who has been spearheading this case for the Antiguan government since it began back in 2003 observed "I am pleased that the panel approved our ability to cross-retaliate by suspension of intellectual property rights of United States business interests. That has only been done once before and is, I believe, a very potent weapon." Mr Mendel expressed less satisfaction with the amount of damages assessed. "I find it astonishing that two of the three panellists would in essence grant the United States the benefit of a hypothetical method of compliance most favourable to the American side in assessing Antigua's level of trade impairment. What appears to have been done here is assuming a form of compliance that has not happened and probably will not happen without giving Antigua the ability to contest the method under the WTO's normal procedures," he added. Unlike other WTO rulings, awards of arbitrators are not subject to review by the Appellate Body of the WTO.

While questioning the low number, Mr Mendel remains positive about the dispute going forward. "US $21 million a year in intellectual property rights suspension going forward indefinitely is not such a bad asset to have. I hope that the United States government will now see the wisdom in reaching some accommodation with Antigua over this dispute and look forward to seeing efforts in this regard."

Re:WTO proves to have no teeth

[thisissilly]

"US $21 million a year in intellectual property rights suspension going forward indefinitely is not such a bad asset to have."

At RIAA prices of $100,000 per song, that 21 million is a whopping 210 songs, not even enough to fill a 1GB Ipod Nano.

Re:WTO proves to have no teeth

[CodeBuster]

Where are they going to sell their $21 million in annual IP infringement? The US will almost certainly attempt to bully potential customers of Antiguan copies of American DVDs into not buying. Is the local demand in Antigua for US copyrighted goods equal to $21 million per year? Maybe, but they will probably have some trouble trying to sell these warez outside of Antigua.

Aiding and abetting I'm guessing

[huckamania]

Or maybe 'conspiracy to violate copyright laws'. The US government also has tax laws in its arsenal.

It just depends on how bad they want to get you. If they want you bad enough, expect them to pull rabbits out of their hats and aces from their sleeves.

Re:Aiding and abetting I'm guessing

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot:

They can also pull hares out of their arse.

Re:Aiding and abetting I'm guessing

[huckamania]

More likely it will be your arse that they pull stuff out of...

Amount awarded

[Arthur B.]

Weird. They recognize the US is guilty but they just fine ? US infringement on the right of Antigua's casino is a continuous process but it looks like they're paying a one time fine. Wtf ?

Re:Amount awarded

[EVil Lawyer]

Why does it look that way? The article specifically says it's a $21 ANNUAL fine.

Is this a win for Gordon Reeves and Slysoft?

[Overzeetop]

Just curious...it seems that the decision about suspension of copyright and other IP rights might flow to the encryption "protecting" such rights.

Virtual Goods vs. Physical Goods

[Ohio Calvinist]

I remember a few years ago a friend bought a bottle of Absinthe (liquor) from Europe after the EU laws changed, and it didn't get through customs. The web vendor notifed him before purchasing that that "could happen" and it was at his own risk. Absinthe seems like one of those "kind of questionable" things just like internet gambling was 7-8 years ago. (Enforced rarely and made illegal by virtue of re-interpretation/application of an old law.) Come to pass, the item was siezed in Customs. I don't know if that gets sent back, destoryed or becomes some agent's private stock.

It would seem that the beef Antigua has is that the US is stopping the transaction on the front end, and not the back-end. I highly doubt if the US forced US Banks to report any wire transfers coming from Antigua, and then the gov't siezed the "winnings" as they were paid back, that they'd have much of a leg to stand on. They don't care if their customers get nailed by the US Government for doing something illegal, other than if it happens enough it might be negative advertising if some grandma gets hammered for her $150 online blackjack winnings.

I understand the historical reasons behind the illegality of betting over the wire, but given that I can take a $99 flight to Las Vegas or go to Indian casinos across the county, it seems kind of irrelevant, and the US Gov't could still require US based online casinos to adhere to all the regulatory control the current brick-and-mortar ones do.

Regarding the **IA... I think if they can levy lawsuits on 80 year olds who don't even know who Brittney Spears is... I think they'll take a shot in the dark at someone pulling songs from off-shore accounts. They might get screwed however on US originating CDs sold there, but I'd imagine the royalty is already built into the price the retailers pay at wholesale.

Re:Virtual Goods vs. Physical Goods

[Bartab]

They don't care if their customers get nailed by the US Government for doing something illegal

It is not federally illegal for US citizens to gamble online, so as long as you pay your taxes the feds are happy. It is illegal for banks to facilitate the transfer of funds to foreign online gambling providers.

Note that it is illegal for citizens to gamble under some state laws. Washington for example.

Re:Virtual Goods vs. Physical Goods

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Absinthe seems like one of those "kind of questionable" things just like internet gambling was 7-8 years ago. (Enforced rarely and made illegal by virtue of re-interpretation/application of an old law.)

The NYTimes just had an article about how Absinthe was thought to be one of those "kind of questionable things" but the law that made it illegal was overturned as part of a more massive anti-prohibition law. So many people thought it was technically illegal, but in reality it was fine.

Re:Virtual Goods vs. Physical Goods

[CPNABEND]

"I understand the historical reasons behind the illegality of betting over the wire, but given that I can take a $99 flight to Las Vegas or go to Indian casinos across the county, it seems kind of irrelevant, and the US Gov't could still require US based online casinos to adhere to all the regulatory control the current brick-and-mortar ones do." Ah, yes, but the taxes don't flow from some small country in the Caribbean where the Americans are gambling. Remember, if the FEDs don't get their cut, the activity must be illegal :)

Re:Virtual Goods vs. Physical Goods

[cdrguru]

Yes, but the WTO will not allow restriction to just US-based online casinos. Therefore, I can set up an unregulated (cheating) casino that operates just over the border in Mexico. There wouldn't be a thing the US could do about it. This is probably the biggest reason why online casinos are frowned upon. Once that door opens, there isn't any way to control it. The US easily has the most gullible population when it comes to gambling anywhere on the planet and opening Russian, Carribean and other online casinos to US citizens would be a disaster.

If poor people put money they can't really afford to lose on lottery tickets, why would they be any more sensible with a casino they don't have to get on a bus to get to?

Re:Virtual Goods vs. Physical Goods

[jonwil]

Why cant the US say, if you own a foriegn casino and want to operate in the USA, you have to meet some simple rules. The rules would say that gambling taxes have to be paid on all bets placed by Americans. And would also specify that casinos have to meet standards in terms of oversight and checks against cheating etc.

So basically it wouldn't matter if the casino (or their servers) are in Boston, Barbados, Berlin, Brisbane or Barnard's Star, the US will still get their gambling taxes and still get oversight to make sure the games are "fair"

Oh yeah?

[RandoX]

In other news, the White House has released a statement demanding that Antigua halt its WMD programs...

Re:Oh yeah?

[GrpA]

Weapons of Music Discounting ?

GrpA

Why do we keep doing this?

[blitzkrieg3]

From TFA:

The arrest in 2006 of two British Internet gambling executives while traveling through the United States also highlighted the U.S. government's escalation of its battle against the industry.

First Dmitry Sklyarov, now this. Here's an idea, why don't we NOT arrest people that were doing things legal in their country of residence, regardless of wether its are legal here? And people wonder why tourism is down, even though European buying power has skyrocketed in recent months.

Re:Why do we keep doing this?

[pjt33]

Actually I think that's a major factor. How many people run gambling websites or trade with Cuba? IMO it's more that since 11th September 2001 US immigration procedures treat all foreigners in ways which, in Britain at least, we reserve for criminals. That's compounded by a lack of manpower, which means that the queues to have your fingerprints taken can take a very long time. The benefits of cheap goods and hotels don't outweigh the downsides of frustrating travel and insulting treatment.

Re:Why do we keep doing this?

[Slashdot Parent]

And people wonder why tourism is down, even though European buying power has skyrocketed in recent months. Nobody is wondering why tourism is down.

Tourism fell after 9/11/2001. Hopefully you can figure out why. It has been steadily climbing since, and 2006 was the first year in which international tourism has increased beyond pre-9/11 numbers.

But please don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

Re:Why do we keep doing this?

[Doc Ruby]

Do you really think foreigners haven't been traveling to the US for the past 6 years because they're afraid their planes will get hijacked into planebombs?

It's not like the tourist infrastructure capacity was reduced after 2001 (except the WTC itself, which itself now probably accommodates more tourists than before as a gawking park).

Maybe no one is wondering, but that was a figure of speech. Tourism is down in no small part because traveling to the US now has all kinds of unwarranted indignities and hassles, some of which cost money (discarding fluids, etc). Other countries competing with us do not have those competitive disadvantages.

Re:Why do we keep doing this?

[hughk]

Fluids on a plane has been forced through just about everywhere (mostly on US insistance). Extra immigration controls mean much larger quues at major entry-points. The main problem is the visa waiver scheme is being constrained (e.g., if you forgot to check out with an immigration official, you are an overstay and the waiver no longer applies) and those who need a visa have to go through a scheme designed to discourage tourists and many businessmen. Already, conferences are moving to the Carribean or Mexico as it becomes easier for foreign participants to come.

Re:Why do we keep doing this?

[Doc Ruby]

I also think that one very big factor is how many people used to come visit here just to see a people who were widely respected and admired for our attitude. Now, with the Iraq War, the Terror War as a whole, all the rhetoric about "immigrants" (legal or otherwise), and our many other irresponsible treatments of the rest of the world (unsupportable debt, arrogance...), the Statue of Liberty isn't as compelling a vacation any more. And of course that's reflected in business travel, both because those trips are often excuses for vacations, and because our foreign competition for that is rising as we're falling.

Antigua Screwed

[Nom du Keyboard]

Antigua was screwed by this decision. The arbitrators should all be investigated for receiving payoffs or other compensation to make such an unfair ruling. And after the investigation, they should all be jailed!

Since the ban is still in place, does Antigua get additional damages ongoing, or is the $21M the whole thing now and forever?

Just say no to the WTO

[Thundercleets]

The rest of the US should not have to pay for an agency that is outside US law and was built to skirt the Congress of the US and the Constitution so that the top 10% can make more money.

A determination of the top beneficiaries of edicts of the WTO should be made to pay for the fees imposed by their monster.

Not that it would ever happen because in the US these days rich people do not pay taxes, fines or fees and no law affecting however they increase their wealth ever be made.

WTF?

[DynaSoar]

It's all because of Microsoft, so I for one welcome our new goat overlords because in Soviet Russia Linux runs YOU.

The above is as relevant to the issue of an unfair practices lawsuit over banking as is the gratuitous insertion of a question about copyright.

If the article can't stand on its own without throwing in an irrelevant hot button, it's not worth polluting the bit stream with it. I can see some such things getting by the editors, but there's so many of them that they must be selecting articles that have these.

Maybe next time I submit an interesting but non-inflammatory article, I should spice it up with an otherwise useless mention of RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft and SCO.

Oh, can I mention SCO, or does their bankruptcy proceedings prevent mentioning them on Slashdot?

Yeah, like that.

Mods notice: This is not a troll, because I mean it.
It may have hurmorous elements (actually, it's sarcasm), but it's not intended to be funny.
It is not flamebait, because it's not intended to elicit flames.
It is in fact a flame itself. There is not mod marker for that.
Mark it overrated if you like, but it's posted in all seriousness because of the lack of journalistic integrity when having same would cost nothing and produce a better publication.

I will go back to banging my head against a brick wall now.

Re:WTF?

[Rary]

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, and I, too, was puzzled and annoyed at first by the addition of the RIAA comment, however the article does actually mention that Antigua and Barbuda were essentially awarded the right to violate U.S. copyrights in retaliation, so it is actually relevant. It's still pretty obvious flamebait, though.

Re:WTF?

[DynaSoar]

To the moderator who heeded my plea: thank you for the -1 overrated rather than something irrelevant.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO is always a good target. I wonder what the betting pool is on the day SCO is completely sold off or closed, and if there are any takers left on the idea that the judge could have a heart attack and be replaced by Darl McBride's not-so-evil-but-still-pretty-awful twin?

When you only have $21M to work with

[Nom du Keyboard]

When you only have $21M/year to work with, I'd recommend targeting it towards the single company, or two, who have the most to lose and will squeal the loudest at the US government for allowing this to happen. Don't spread it around so much that nobody feels your pain!

allofmp3.ag?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how long before allofmp3.ag shows up?

US just changing the treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting how the article describes the US as just saying "We'll end that treaty as we don't like it", and using its size to push this through. So much for treaties!

With things like Guatanamo and Water-Boarding coming into the news the US may start getting reputation problems.

Re:cue "politics as usual" Whatever the case,

[davidsyes]

things will go down in...

Antiguity...

close...

[absurdist]

This is simply the US trying to protect the tax revenue generated by the domestic gambling industry.

There, fixed that for you.

Happy Birthday

[blueskies]

I can just see a Happy Birthday song industry starting up there now. People will go on vacation there to sing Happy Birthday to their loved ones.

Funny is it?

[eiapoce]

relating to the US passage last year of a law that forbids banks from handling money to and from online casinos Thus using internet to place investments in financial markets it is ufficially forbidden in the USA. :D

Re:Funny is it?

[superwiz]

Thus using internet to place investments in financial markets it is ufficially forbidden in the USA. :D I know you are kidding, but this opinion is all too common that it might be worth while to point out why it's wrong. Investment is a purchase of something tangible. It's value is determined by the actual value of what whatever you into possession (or partial possession). It is only risky because life in general is. Whereas gambling is a contract to be paid if a certain yet-impossible-to-predict event occurs. No possession exchanges hands in the case of gambling other than the possession of money. In case of investing, only one side of the exchange is money -- the other one is property (well, some contract involving property). I am not a lawyer, but it would be interesting to see if you can side step the Internet gambling restrictions by using gold as currency rather than actual currency. In that case no money would be exchanged. It would just be a contract that states by what rules property is to be exchanged at a future date.

Re:Funny is it?

[IdeaMan]

One could just as easily argue that purchasing US dollars from banks is also gambling. It's not truly a possession in that it has no intrinsic value. Now if you had money that was actually backed by say gold then you might have a point.

On a side note, why couldn't a gambling house say that they are doing very short term high margin investments?
I think it would be really cool to have a slot machine where you pick which stock to invest in, pull the handle, wait for the line to go up or down however far you feel like it, and when you let go it cashes out.

Re:Funny is it?

[eiapoce]

Investment is a purchase of something tangible I was kidding indeed but I get you don't have any hint about the Futures and Options markets. In these cases you don't buy anithing but future property. Many use this as a way to scure transactions against incertainty while others just gamble.

As an horrible example (I know this is sad) it is rumored that some operators sold futures of american airlines before the WTC attak in order to profit from the subsequent crisis.

Re:Funny is it?

[superwiz]

One could just as easily argue that purchasing US dollars from banks is also gambling. I don't believe US recognizes the claim that money issued by the Federal Reserve is "purchased" from banks. Certainly, its exchange is regulated by different laws than the laws regulating purchasing (as in volitious exchange of money for other possessions as regulated under UCC). Of course, I am not a lawyer.

On a side note, why couldn't a gambling house say that they are doing very short term high margin investments? Because that's not how the gambling contracts are written. They could try that theory, I suppose. But stock ownership is controlled by laws and exchange rules. So these types of contracts may not be legally possible.

I think it would be really cool to have a slot machine where you pick which stock to invest in, pull the handle, wait for the line to go up or down however far you feel like it, and when you let go it cashes out. But this is probably why they don't. Because they don't get to control the odds at which stock market events happen. Worse yet, very-short-term stock market events could be easily manipulated.

Re:Funny is it?

[superwiz]

Of course, I do. But they are contracts to buy/sell something tangible... not palpable, but still tangible. They are just contracts that specify more of the details of how the underlying asset is to be purchased. Option is a bit trickier to explain because you have to pay to enter into the contract itself, but essentially that's all the price of the option is. It is the cost of entering into a contract to buy/sell a real-world property. Again, all investments are gambles because the real world is never completely predictable. But underneath they are still just commerce (as in purchase of thing). Some just involve more complicated purchase terms than others. While gambling does not involve any real world items. It is a contract to be paid based on an outcome of an event.

LULZ AT YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of moron would even think about gambling online out of Antigua or anywhere outside the USA for that matter?

A simple google search of 'online gambling scheme' reveales a ton of scams involving thousands of crooks internationally. In the USA there are not as nearly as many schemes as everything is regulated very heavily and almost every scheme is caught in the end. When gambling online you not only have to worry about the odds of the house, but the odds of a cheater taking everyones money; lowering the odds even more for everyone.

Oh you don't believe me? Guess you don't remember This Story. Yea a major share holder/investor of absolute poker online was watching everyones hand and winning hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I guess you still want to gamble online? "It's my money its what I want to do! I want to be a dumbass in the face of clear evidence!!"

I'm sorry but the issue has nothing to do with bush; keep this name out of it. I know around here if you talk shit about bush you automagically get modded up; fact is EVERY industry has paid off congress to protect their intrests, where it be economically or morally.

This part of the WTO is where it does get sketchy because I think there are some people in government that genuinely want to protect the person investing their money, and to tell them where to gamble is wrong but if you know its a scam how can one responsibilly allow that? Sure they want to keep gambling in their own regulated casinos, because they are proven safe without any fear of being cheated.

Seriously, you're asking HOW?

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA has no trouble making up crazy theories unsupported by law (e.g. "making available") and you're seriously asking me how they'd go after someone? If the law isn't on their side yet, they'll buy a new one.

As far as I can tell, the **AA-holes have a one-factor test in whether or not they'll sue you for doing anything remotely concerning their imaginary property:

* Are we making enough money off of their work?
[Yes] Ask for more money.
[No] Sue the bastards.

Re:Seriously, you're asking HOW?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that they might buy a new law. They might also use this situation to get one passed. But in all the cases they have made, it was all about making available or sharing. None of them were about downloading 20,000 songs, all about giving them away or making it so other could get them.

they haven't even attempted the "you got something for nothing" approach yet for a reason. But as you suggested, they will probably buy a new law so they can.

+1, Impotent Rage and Frustration

[circletimessquare]

is that the type of mod you were going for?

Who wrote this crap!?

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Zonk is an idiot. It doesnt matter which server you steal music from. You are still stealing.

Re:Who wrote this crap!?

[ozzee]

Zonk is an idiot. It doesnt matter which server you steal music from. You are still stealing. Copyright violation is not stealing - they are different things.

don't click that myminicity shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Please post a way to screw up people's myminicity. These links on slashdot are pretty annoying.

no

[Anonymous Coward]

If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?"

No, because they'll just sue you in a US we-have-juristiction-anywhere-over-anyone court and then enforce it by picking you up when you're either in US juristiction or not in US juristiction, but aren't in anyone else's that's going to stop them. Ref: Dmitry Sklyarov, David Carruthers, Gary Kaplan, Natwest 3

it is largely protectionism

[Trepidity]

Moral-majority nonsense is part of it, but it's also no accident that U.S.-based casinos were among the bill's biggest proponents, and casino-money-taking representatives were the ones who pushed it. One of the bill's main purposes is to protect American gambling corporations from internet-based and foreign competition.

Gambling vs Copyright?

[Doc Ruby]

a law that forbids banks from handling money to and from online casinos. [...] If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?"

What does this WTO decision have to do with the Antigua case for immunity from US copyright laws? I don't see where Antigua's copyright case is affected by this ruling.

However, since the US is reacting to losing the gambling case by revising the US rules for compliance with the WTO rules governing gambling, to get out of being governed by them, it does seem possible that the gambling victory is Pyhrric, because it moved the US to gut the rules that underlay the copyright case's chances.

WTO Ruling

[oldsaint]

The WTO decision has nothing to do with MP3s or IP law. It is about access to gambling over the internet. The WTO has long ago ruled that the US can not allow internet gambling within the country, while banning it from other countries. The legal principle is called national treatment. i.e., what any WTO member country allows from or for its own citizens, it must allow for the citizens of other WTO countries. This is very similar to US law that requires states to allow Indian casino gambling if they allow other forms of gambling.

Brief Summary

[Venner]

In Brief:

A treaty Commitment under the WTO agreements basically means that you will permit market access by other WTO members to a particular good/service, and that you will treat it as you would your own good/service in your own country (National Treatment.)

The USA had a treaty Commitment under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which is one of the major WTO agreements stemming from the 1994 Uruguay Round of negotiations that created the WTO. Antigua argued, and a WTO panel and appeals body both agreed that the particular Commitment covered Gambling & Betting Services. The US before, during, and after all of the decisions against them refused to allow Antiguan gambling services into the United States, while arguably allowing similar activities to operate domestically. (Or at least being capricious about enforcement and refusing to clarify decades-old ambiguous legislation.)

Another WTO Agreement is the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS), covering international copyrights, patents, etc. Because Antigua is so small and the USA is so big, normal damages seemed inadequate to stop the USA from continuing their WTO-defiant behavior. Antigua has the right to ask for variances in other related WTO agreements instead - although it is quite unusual, and has only been used one time before, and then only as a threat. So they said, "Hey - the US was and still is in violation of their WTO obligations. We would like relief in the form of a waiver of some of their WTO rights until they conform."

That's the really, really simplified version. There are a lot of other issues going on, especially definitional.