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.

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.

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"

[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"

[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"

[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.

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

[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

[Hatta]

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

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

[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.

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

[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: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: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: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.

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.

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...

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.

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: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.

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:cue "politics as usual" Whatever the case,

[davidsyes]

things will go down in...

Antiguity...

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.

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.