Slashdot Mirror
US Ignores Unwelcome WTO IP Rulings
Eye Log writes "The United States is a big fan of leaning on other countries to tighten IP and copyright protection, but has a tendency to ignore its own obligations when it doesn't get its way. 'Two ongoing cases illustrate the point. First, the European Union is pushing for the US to change a pair of rules that it calls "long-standing trade irritants." Despite World Trade Organization rulings against it, the US has not yet corrected either case for a period of several years... Apparently, it's easy to get hot and bothered when it's industries from your country that claim to be badly affected by rules elsewhere. When it comes to the claims of other countries, though, even claims that have been validated by the WTO, it's much easier to see the complexity of the situation, to spend years arguing those complexities before judges, and to do nothing even when compelled by rulings.'"
Given the way this administration has been handling Foreign Policy, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone ...
movie at 11:00....
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
News at eleven.
The big problem with the WTO is that it exists to try to find equities in other peoples laws. In my country its legal to do something that might be illegal in yours. The problem with that is that its great when people are talking about physical properties, however its much more difficult when dealing with the same disputes on intellectual property. If I play a radio in my work than its the station that sells advertisements that pays for the songs. As long as I don't advertise the fact like some kind of main street concert hall than I'm not sure why it matters.
Yes, there is likely hypocrisy in this on the part of the US, but "do as I say, not as I do" on the part of the US is not news to anyone here. What I am glad to see, though, is that most countries seem to have some willingness to ignore at least some of the ridiculousness inherent in "intellectual property" law. The idea that ideas can be owned and hoarded is dying, and anything that hastens its demise is fine by me. How can one hoard ideas in a world where knowledge, information, and media are simply at the end of one's fingertips on a keyboard?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
thank god.
If I can gain an advantage by getting others to follow phony rules, good for me, but I'm not bound by them.
Note that this is significantly different than treaties, which are between specific countries, and spell out specific remedies, the ultimate being the offended party withdrawing from the treaty (or war).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Nice troll. Even got modded up.
Germany is one of the greenest countries in Europe, even giving citizens a fixed rate on solar energy they produce. France produces most of it's electricity through Nuclear power.
Bad Moderators. Go to your room. No soup for you.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
IP should stand for "imaginary" rather than "intellectual" property. It means absolutely nothing if nobody agrees to enforce it, and as such does not provide a secure or stable source of GDP.
Any economist foolish enough to believe in "IP" as a long term foundation for an economy is not only incompetent, but dangerous to whomever he councils.
You either take action against outsourcing or you face the slides happening in the US economy now.
jobs get outsourced
government doesnt take action
rents go up, job opportunities go down, inflation occurs as your constant trade imbalance floods the rest of the planet with fiat money.
economies are based on production of real goods and services, not residual income dependent only on the willing
compliance of neighbors.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Good. They should use it. Just like every other nation uses their powers in their own self-interest. Why should any nation bow to the UN against their own interest? They shouldn't. The UN exists to server, not to rule. It has precisely no authority.
I am very glad that businesses here don't need to pay $30,000 a year to play the radio where customers can hear it. It's nice when our government protects us from abusive regulations, even if it doesn't happen very often.
what sig?
US trade policy is self-serving, we all know that. But couldn't the author provide some good examples to really make the point? These are pretty weak:
=> I would be willing to wager that most everyone commenting on this thread would consider that fair use.
=> Weren't the trade sanctions against Cuba put there and don't they remain there in part because of Cuban human rights abuses? The governments calling USA to task on this have companies which have "invested in Cuban business". The trademarks are not protected in the US to limit Cuban companies profiting from these trademarks in the US. If other countries want to sell their rum in the US under a protected trademark, they seem free to use a different trademark. Whether US trade sanctions against Cuba are moral or justified is a different issue from IP.
=> Legal gambling outfits in the US follow strict gambling laws that regulate, among other things, machine calibration, payout ratios, etc. Online gambling from other countries is outlawed in the USA because the mechanisms to ensure fairness can not be physically confirmed by government representatives.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Imagine if the same philosophy was adopted by everyone. Suddenly I could decide that the law doesn't apply to me and opt out. I could rob banks at will and have a lot of fun. The Banks would want me stopped, but because I've opted out, they would not be able to use the law to stop me. Instead they would have to opt out of the law as well and take matters into their own hands, probably violently.
That's the kind of situation that currently exists internationally and it's not a good thing.
Exactly. How is Europe so completely backwards on this issue? Every pair of ears that listens to the songs is a pair of ears that listens to the ads as well, and those ads pay the bills. I would think the radio stations and music labels would be GLAD to have people listening to them in workplaces and waiting rooms.
If these laws were enforced in the USA, there would be riots, then it would be silence or royalty-free classical music only.
What bureaucratic knot did they invent to justify why should it cost money if you listen in a place of business when it's designed to be a free-to-receive service?
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
something to complain about, and act like we want US companies to be successful. 1) Completely eliminate the income tax, and, just to be clear, that means the corporate income tax, too. 2) Institute a National sales tax to run the country with. In addition to the cessation of wasting all that money to collect the income tax, all American goods reduce in price dramatically from not having to pay income tax. Imported goods stay the same price, since they weren't paying American income tax in all those Chinese and Korean factories anyway. Then American goods get taxed back up to about what they were, while foreign goods increase maybe 23 - 28% or so. Wonder if the WTO would have a hemmorhage, and what they could do about it.
The US has used the Veto the most times, at least since the 80s. Of course all 5 permanent dictators of the UN Security Council have the veto power. Even the threat of Veto (Hidden Veto) is enough to stop resolutions from even being proposed. That's what happened with Rwanda. France and the US threatened to veto anything that had the word "Genocide" in it, because it would have required immediate action. Yet it is not France and the US that people blame for Rwanda. Instead people look at Rwanda and say the UN is to blame (the US and France must be quite relieved at that).
The will of the world is expressed through General Assembly Resolutions, but perversely they are non binding, whereas the UN Security Council dictatorship resolutions are binding. Then again, it wouldn't really matter if the General Assembly resolutions were binding, because powerful countries like the US, Russia, China etc would just ignore them. Since the major powers clearly have no interest in obeying the rules, it comes down to who is militarily powerful, and that is a very poor lesson to teach the rest of the world. The result of all this is that more and more countries will try to develop nuclear weapons in an attempt to join this "power club".
And that is a bad thing how? There is NO SUCH THING as 'International Law', and all countries routinely ignore the bits of said 'law' that don't suit them. Look up the word sovereignty sometime then come back for a cogent discussion.
Weren't the trade sanctions against Cuba put there and don't they remain there in part because of Cuban human rights abuses?
...
Yes. That explains those extensive sanctions against China too.
Oh, hang on
Both Canada and Mexico have similar problems when it comes to the USA not complying with WTO rulings. These will be on the table if NAFTA is renegotiated.
The WTO doesn't have authority over these cases. The WTO only covers issues of free trade, it doesn't allow for international groups to override local laws that don't impede trade. In the cases cited, the international interests are being provided with the same level of protection as domestic ones are.
The Irish musicians are being treated exactly the same way that all other musicians are being treated here, and they are still free to sell their CDs here if people are interested in buying them. You'd be hard pressed to find an actual WTO treaty violation there.
Likewise the issue of trademark law is an internal issue to the US, these companies are still allowed to sell their goods in the US, they just don't get trademark protection if they're using trademarks which were owned by Cuban businesses. The US has the right to decide what is and is not protected under our trademark law.
Yes, we're being terribly hypocritical, but the WTO really and truly does not have the authority to force us to make those particular changes.
Those two issues pale in comparison to the kind of boot legging and piracy that go on in some parts of the world. The WTO itself has been guilty of abusing IP as a means of gaining compliance for things which it hasn't the authority to arbitrate in the first place.
I know that it's popular with the hate America first groups to make a big deal out of all this, but it's apples and oranges. The US is the leading exporter of IP, of course we're going to be concerned with piracy. But why is it that we can't at least acknowledge that these cases are hardly the same as the rampant piracy in some parts of the world and are hardly appropriate issues for the WTO to arbitrate in the first place.
This is true. The constitution does, however gives congress the right to sign treaties with foreign governments. I looked it up: from section 2 on the powers of the president:
My understanding is that the congress passed and the president signed all previous rounds of the WTO agreements. We have representation in the WTO, both in setting it up and each round of talks. We also had full representation during the judgments that went against us.The laws of Germany or some other sovereign country do not have anything to do with this case. Prior presidents and Congresses lawfully entered our nation into agreements with other nations for (perceived) mutual benefit. If no longer feel the treaties are of benefit, I believe we can leave the organization, but overall it does a great deal of good, especially for the shareholders of large US companies that sell abroad. If they do not want their moral power diluted, perhaps THEY should encourage their congressmen to enforce the ruling...
As for you foreigners, while you are technically correct that the US is just as out of line as other countries, I detect a mean-spiritedness in your comments. Are you feeling resentful because you are being "pushed around" by the US on this issue? Get over it. This is an argument over money, and probably not even yours. This is the money of the rich people in the US v.s. the rich in your country. If you aren't rich, you have no dog in this race. If you are rich, shut up and enjoy it.
Save your mean-spirited comments for where they belong: discussions of US foreign policy and our tendency to invade places.
"I love his boyish charm, but I hate his childishness" - Leela
Effect of treaties is NOT clear in the Constitution. In fact, its one of the most long-standing and opaque issues left entirely unresolved (even more so than the 2nd Amendment, or War Powers). Here's a question: If the Senate ratifies a treaty which prohibits free speech, is it Constitutional? A very simplistic interpretation would say so. But of course, that would be absurd. It would be absurd to allow a single House of Congress to do something that otherwise would be impossible without amending the Constitution.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that, 200 years ago, all treaties merely dealt with how countries dealt with one another, and never affected how a country executed its domestic laws, or treated its domestic citizenry. (Admiralty law, and how extra-territorial citizens were treated is different.) The entire conception of "treaty" has changed. Compounded by the dearth of Supreme Court interpretation of either conception, and it becomes an extremely difficult question.
That doesn't mean its fair. European countries don't have the same sort of Constitutional governance that America has (we're unique in both the role that the Constitution plays--shared w/ many post-colonial countries, _and_ in how rigorously we attempt to abide by it--shared w/ very few countries). So while European countries are naturally more willing to allow treaties to intrude on domestic governance, the US isn't for very significant political and historical reasons.
But rather than complain about the "rule of law", and the headaches it causes, wouldn't it be better to praise it? It's a double-edged sword. The European Commission often impedes in the Constitutional spheres of the European Council and Parliament. That's tolerated in Europe far more than it would be here. It might allow for quicker resolution of issues like this sometimes, but its not clear to me that its preferable overall.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Clinton lied about a blowjob under oath.
Bush lied in his oath of office about defending the constitution.
I know which I think is treasonous.