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.'"
Back in the 80s the US even ignored a ruling from the World Court to cease it's terrorist activities in Nicaragua, which included mining the harbours and putting civilian shipping in great danger. It even ignored the two subsequent UN General Assembly resolutions demanding that it observe the World Court Ruling.
It basically comes down to this. If you are powerful, you can ignore the rules. If you are not, you may well be in serious trouble.
growing?
what fantasy world are these guys living in?
Sure the number of IP claims are going up, but the value to the public is clearly going down, and p2p isnt going anywhere.
They can claim "growing stakes" all they wish, but the voracity of their claims extend only as far as the walls of their ivory towers.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I don't think that's flamebait at all: US corps act in their own interest exclusively, with no concern for "fairness". That's even a legal requirement of the directors and officers of a corp.
Of course a corporation uses it's influence to try to get favorable WTO rulings enfored with an iron fist, and unfavorable rulings delayed or ignored. That's how they're supposed to act. Ideally congresscritters would care about the people they represent, but it's hardly news that they instead care about they corporations that they represent.
I disagree that the "US government considers themselves to be kings of the world and that their laws and points of view should prevail over everything and everyone else", as the "US government" isn't a person, it's composed of people who are just trying to do what's best for their campaign contributers.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
No, it's a glad truth.
The Revolutionary War took place due to a foreign "government" trying to rule US citizens. The breaking point was taxation without representation, but mostly it was all laws without representation.
Of COURSE the US laws and points of view prevail IN THE US over anything else. We are a soverign nation. We have our own laws and our own courts. We aren't SUPPOSED to be controlled by every other country on the planet. Our SCOTUS isn't SUPPOSED to be considering other country's laws when they rule on laws we have passed here, they have a Constitution they are supposed to consider as supreme.
That Constitution says nothing about the WTO getting to change US laws they don't like. It says nothing about UN Resolutions. Our government tops out at the federal level.
I'm GLAD that it is that way. If I wanted to live under the laws of Germany, I'd move there. If I wanted Sharia (sp?) law, I'd move to a country that has that. If I think Germany has a stupid law, I have every right to say that, but there is no mechanism for me to force them to change their laws, NOR SHOULD THERE BE. Nor should there be a mechanism for Germans to force a change to our laws. And if using a specific country as an example confuses things, simply replace Germany with any other country. England, Germany, China, Japan, Sweden, whatever.
If that sounds like flamebait, well, I get tired of hearing people say things like 'The WTO says we are wrong to do X, so obviously we are wrong to do X and our laws must conform.' No. It is not obvious. We do NOT have to do what the WTO says we must. If we listen to the WTO and AGREE, well, that's one thing, but agreement isn't automatic. We can also listen and disagree, and if we disagree, we don't have to act.
It's like saying that the President doesn't listen to Sheehan or any other protesters because he doesn't immediately do what they demand. Yes, he listens, but he was elected to make choices, and not every person is going to agree with every choice. That's life.
The USA died long ago and it has been a slow gradual death; although, recent years have been moving faster - as if its the last breath.
Biggest mistake in the constitution has always been the clause about treaties. Treaties should be at least as difficult as passing a law if not more so.
The constitution is "quaint" and is no longer the law of the land. USA is dead. What we have is USA Inc.
I don't own an American restaurant, but in Slashdot's constant whining about the RIAA, one of the whines I hear is that restaurants have to pay copyright holders to play music at their radio, and how the RIAA even pays people to go to restaurants and mark down whether or not their is RIAA music being played. I know that music venues with live bands covering RIAA music are responsible. So I doubt this example is even true.
And as far as Havana Club goes - I agree the US is in the wrong, and furthermore I'm not a resident of the US and think the Havana Club 7 is about as good as rum gets. However a further issue is that in the US, the copyright was granted to the family that owned the rum, before the Cuban government nationalized the factory and the family fleed to the US. Let me repeat: it was a family business that was stolen by the government. So I think it's reasonable that the family should be able to hold on to (and eventually sell) their rights to the name - or at least, I can sympathize.
The author of he article doesn't do himself any favors with his tone, rather than an impartial reporter he comes across as a whiny teenager. I guess samzenpus is new, and already I'm rooting for him to go the way of michael and timothy.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Problems like this go back long before Bush and Cheney (though they've refined the whole arrogance/prickishness thing to the status of art): one set of rules for the United States, another set for everybody else. And yet, for some reason, Americans feel hurt and a little bewildered when they find out how unpopular they are in the rest of the world. The comfortable answer is, "Everybody envies us because we're just so absolutely wonderful". The actual answer is that this kind of behaviour makes it easy to be disliked.
Americans have long made a point of passing themselves off as Canadians when traveling abroad (even to the point of wearing the Maple Leaf). Unfortunately they persist in acting like Americans, which is giving Canadians a bad name, especially in Europe. Or (as has happened to me in England on two occasions) you get politely grilled about All Things Canadian and eventually asked flat-out to show some ID proving you're from the Bigger Colder Place.
I'm not sure how to fix the problem when the overwhelming majority of Americans don't even believe that there is one, but it really needs to be addressed unless the United States wants to become increasingly isolated and ignored on the international stage.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Above all else, the US government is obligated to obey by the rule of law. the "US government" isn't a person, it's composed of people who are just trying to do what's best for their campaign contributers. No. I'm sorry; the US government is not the fucking mafia. Corporations may lobby the government to do anything whatsoever, but the government must stop short of doing those things that are illegal.
I hope I've managed to put this into better context for you. To reiterate:
Legal: US may do.
Illegal: US MAY NOT DO.
One more time: No. The answer to illegal requests is always no, and it doesn't matter who the fuck is asking. If it does, it's a crime.
Congress is obliged to pass laws enforcing treaties with other sovereign states which it has passed. I mean, that's the whole point of a treaty.
The US may want to reconsider its behavior. It's failing dollar, failing industries and general economic decline means WTO-sanctioned actions against it may in the future have a far more potent result. Today it's tiny little guys like Antigua, but imagine if China or the EU were given similar favorable rulings. It could devastate already-ailing industries.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.