Slashdot Mirror
WTO Awards Caribbean Country Right to Ignore US Copyright
The WTO's recent ruling on Antigua's complaint against the US over the banning of online gambling resulted in a payment to the island nation much less than they asked for. It appears, though, that this payment was just part of the WTO's compensation package for Antigua/Barbuda. Via Kotaku, the Hollywood Reporter notes that the Caribbean country can now freely ignore US copyright laws - legally. This dispensation is apparently limited to some $21 million a year. "The WTO often takes decisions awarding trade compensation in cases where one nation's policies are found to break its rules. But this is only the second time the compensation lets one country violate intellectual property laws. In this case, Antigua will -- in theory -- be allowed to distribute copies of American DVDs, CDs and games and software with impunity. 'That has only been done once before and is, I believe, a very potent weapon,' Antigua's lawyer Mark Mendel said. 'I hope that the United States government will now see the wisdom in reaching some accommodation with Antigua over this dispute.'"
You haven't been following this issue. Countries can prohibit trade on moral ground under the WTO. They just can't treat the domestic businesses differently than the foreign ones, which the US does explicitly.
-Dave
That is the problem, that States did not Ban Online Gambling Completely. The Problems is the US Allowed online Gambling on horse races, The Majority of sites most likely in the states.. Since the states does allow one form of online Gambling, banning other forms is seen as a protective tarriff.
I believe the point is that gambling is legal in the US. But the US went and decided that the perfectly legal (in their countries, and if they were in the US and not online) gambling institutions on offshore islands were illegal.
This is more like saying "smoking X is alright in the US. smoking X is alright in the Netherlands. Smoking X you bought online from the netherlands is illegal."
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
I'll quote from a summary I had lying around: "The trade body found that the U.S. had the right to prevent offshore betting as a means of protecting public order and public morals. But it said Washington was violating trade law by targeting online gambling without equal application of the rules to American operators offering remote betting on horse and dog racing."
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Because its isn't a guy its a state. It also isn't property its a right created by states via treaty just as the WTO is created by states via treaty.
Software Inventor
Yes, if you use less specific terms. Change "horse-racing betting" to "gambling" and re-ask the question.
Apparently, WTO sees the US government's uber-specific microlegislation, where it permits some kinds of gambling and not others, as an absurd joke that is obviously derived from special interests (i.e. private industry's desire to use government power to put money into their own pockets) rather than any sort of principles. In other words, they saw it the same way that we, the citizens of US, do.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
No, not really. The US will permit its citizens to gamble in casinos in the US, and also in casinos overseas. The US will not permit its citizens to gamble online with sites hosted in the US, and also will not permit it with sites hosted overseas.
So where's the difference between domestic and foreign?
Several states offer their lotteries online, several states allow horse racing bets to be placed online, and there was even a carveout in the UIGEA for fantasy sports leagues. So yes, there is legal online gambling offered by US companies to US citizens.
Cause we really need another Creationist nut job in the White House. Religious Whack-Jobbery
No thanks.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
The camel's nose came through the interstate commerce clause.
The ruling was that
your wheat which you are going to use privately on your own farm impacts the state market.
your state trades wheat with other states.
So your all your private wheat are belong to us.
Once that was ruled, if they could argue something would have even a secondary affect on interstate commerce, they could regulate it.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This
I hate to ruin the cool stat that you posted of the US never losing WTO cases before Bush, but, well, by some counts the US has lost more then 40 cases before the WTO out of almost 90.
Here is some more information on this http://benmuse.typepad.com/ben_muse/2007/09/how-is-the-us-d.html
or the source (warning PDF) from the US gov't rather then a random blog:
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Monitoring_Enforcement/Dispute_Settlement/WTO/asset_upload_file811_5696.pdf.
I didn't realize that number was so high, but as a Canadian I could think of a couple of cases that didn't go so well for you guys (not that you haven't taken it to us as well).
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
He must have had a weird year, though... Planted 23 acres, and harvested 40bu/acre from 12... half his crop would have been a stunning bumper crop back then and the other half wiped out. That seems strange, though possible. I agree with you, though, it is a miniscule amount. I doubt most people have any idea how miniscule that is. When I was a kid, I could have shovelled that into a truck in under an hour, easily. When I left the farm, we had an augur that would have 130bu in it when loaded. Small U-Haul cube vans could pretty well hold that amount, although it wouldn't be legal, I'm sure.
As far as the livestock angle, no farmer would ever feed cattle on grain alone for a year, unless it's some bizarre specialty market, like veal or something. The 720 cow-days would exclusively happen in the winter, and even then, hay would be the primary sustenance. More than likely, it would have been fifteen to thirty head of cattle (I don't know, we got rid of cattle when I was pretty young), getting half a bushel every two or three days, only when they weren't grazing. Plus chicken feed (???), seed for next year (2-3bu/acre: ie 50-75bu), and (possibly) some milled for personal use (???5-15bu, I have no idea how much flour a bushel makes).
Anyhow...I grew up on a farm, and that's my take...