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.'"
<comment>
<sarc>Yeah, but everyone knows that Irish music sucks so its just not the same as when people copy Brittney Spears.</sarc>
</comment>
This just in... Al Gore is pissed.
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.
If the WTO wants American politicians to listen them, then they need to pony up with the 'campaign funding' like everyone else.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
The Federal government here in the US is allowing corporate interests to screw us, it's citizens, why not the rest of the world too? At least it's consistent.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
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.
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!!
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
I really don't see the problem. Member nations are autonomous. Any compliance with demands from the World Court, the UN or the WTO is strictly voluntary for any nation. Their real authority is precisely whatever the member nations decide. That's not just for the US-- it's for any member nation of any such organization. Orders from the UN and similar groups really just don't matter unless they can back them up-- and they can't. I prefer it that way, honestly. The UN and WTO are a bit too socialistic for my tastes, but that's just me.
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.
Pretty much the very group of people for whom this is an anathema are taking the opportunity to complain that the US has not implemented this draconian bullshit because, well, it's fun to say "the US ignores what it doesn't like".
The chuckle factor is definitely high here.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
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.
The US has more trade agreements with Canada than any other country and in Canada's experience it is absolutely true. The US government's negotiators howl about DRM, our approach to health care, pharmacuticals, gay marriage, drug "leniency" etc, etc while ignoring rluling after ruling not just by the WTO, but by the NAFTA boards, and other committees that supposedly govern bilateral trade. Largely they do it because they can get away with it.
I have no doubt that the US will recover from it's financial woes. The world economy is changing though, and competition for resources is increasing. The US's negotiating position is changing as well. Instead of being the one of a few major buyers of commodities, they are now among many. Ignoring multilateral trade rulings as a routine is going to end as a consequence. At least if the US government is smart about it.
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".
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.
Hello? The EU is so ridiculously hypocritical. Just look at the EU's bananas regime:
http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/June/United_States_Requests_WTO_Panel_to_Review_European_Unions_Banana_Import_Regime.html
The EU has been consistently ruled against for well over a decade, and there is still no movement towards compliance.
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.
Bush/Cheney disregard the law at will.
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.
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
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.
Sorry but the Supremes just declared otherwise.
That Supreme Court case had to do with whether a treaty signed by the US could be enforced by the president.
Apparently, that particular treaty didn't have any legislation passed by congress backing it up and/or the treaty didn't include say anything about how it would affect the states.
"Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that because the treaty did not explicitly say its provisions were binding, and because there was no legislation to make the treaty binding, the president could not on his own force the states to comply." From here.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I'm quite aware of the difference. (Though it's hard to see how one is not copyrighting an "idea" when even a snippet of a few notes or a few lines can be seen as subject to copyright.) Believe me, I hate the term "intellectual property" as much as anyone, because patents, trademarks, and copyrights are totally disparate concepts, and lumping them together just doesn't work. Here, however, the discussion is of patents, which are an exclusive right to an idea or concept, not just an implementation of it. (This was not the intent, patents were originally indeed on specific types or implementations, such as on a certain design of a machine or engine.)
However, the copyright system is badly broken as well, if nothing else than by virtue of its length. Why should it be longer than five to ten years? That will still provide incentive for creators to create. After all, the vast majority of copyrighted works have either turned a profit after five years or never will at all. I cannot honestly imagine an author saying "Oh, well, I'd write my book if I could copyright it for life plus seventy, but not if it's only for ten years!" Nor can I imagine the music industry saying "Oh, our new hit single will only make us $30 million, we'll lose out on the $2 million we'd make after ten years is up! No way, not doing it."
It's also broken by virtue of "automatic" copyrights, since that makes effectively everything copyrighted, many times without an effective means to contact the copyright holder, possibly without any clue who that even is. Technically, this post is copyrighted. If you wanted to repost it somewhere, and you had a legal department breathing down your neck, you would have that as a worry. (Though, for clarity, I couldn't care less if anyone wants to copy my posts and invite them to do so if desired.) That creates a vast body of orphaned but copyrighted work, where the copyright holder is unclear or unreachable. Mandatory registration would eliminate that issue, ensuring that, firstly, only works which the author genuinely wants copyrighted are brought under protection, and that a copyright holder is on record if one should wish to contact them for permission.
I saw an interesting concept a short while back, and quite like it. The concept was that copyright registration would again become mandatory. Copyright holders could renew a copyright for as long as they wish, with only one caveat. The first year's copyright would cost $1, the second $2, the third $4, the fourth $8, and continuing on to double every year. That places short copyrights well within the financial reach of any citizen, while placing overlong copyrights well out of reach of even the richest corporation, and encourages work to be released to the public domain as soon as it is no longer significantly profiting the holder. I think something similar could work for patents as well, let them keep it as long as they want it, but the price continues to go up, and eventually, it will get to the point where it is no longer worth it or simply not even conceivable.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
I'll assume you have some idea of just how much of the US economy is based off-shore. It would not be possible to simply repudiate that part of the debt held by one country and not involve the rest of the international trade/banking system.
I imagine the first thing that would happen is that US liquid assets abroad would be frozen, and eventually confiscated to pay creditors. American-registered corporations could expect to have some portion of their assets taken, or perhaps their firm assets (oil pipelines, factories, etc.) simply nationalized by the host countries. The US is a net importer of so many resources and products in so many sectors I couldn't begin to enumerate them. Especially in the resource sector, suppliers are in a much stronger position in such cases. Do you think the governments China or Saudi Arabia have to beg their people to deal with the drop in revenue while new markets are developed and the US is frozen out? Payment up-front would be the rule of the day, especially for materials, products and services your manufacturing and supply sectors need to continue operations. Attempts to access international credit would be unlikely at best until repayment of current debts had been arranged.
I could go on. I trust you get the point.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
This country isn't a country anymore. We're all owned by Jennings & Rall.
The idea is that (folks in the) US Government are _supposed_ to be making decisions that are best for the _rest_ of us (i.e. - the country as a whole) and not just their campaign contributors.
Nitewing '98
Everything works...in theory.
Remind me to send them a thank you letter. If you would have said Brazilian meat then I would have conceded a point.
I would rather eat raw Swedish chicken than to touch American beef.
Couldn't find any numbers regarding beef but look at the ammount of salmonella in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonellosis#Incidents_of_salmonellosis, 16% of the chickens had salmonella compared with Sweden where 1% of all the animals got it http://www.smittskyddsinstitutet.se/sjukdomar/salmonellainfektion/, the stats are from the Swedish CDC, unfortunatly I couldn't find the numbers in english on the site.
In Sweden when ever salmonella is discovered the whole shipment of food is destroyed and if salmonella is found at a farm then all animals are destroyed.
"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
I'd love to mod you up insightful, because you make the GP's point even better than he does. There's a vocal minority (hopefully it's a minority anyway) of Americans, like yourself, that seem to love to say "fuck you rest of world, we're better, so fnaar!". It's on the level of the sort of humour you get up to in the playground when you're six.
;)) has been as nice as pie. But as a country you seem terribly good at thinking the world revolves around you. Most Brits learned this lesson last century, IMHO to the long-term benefit of the country. I'd like to think the US can too.
Individually, all of the americans I've met in person and on the internet (even the ones who pretend to be Canadian - by the way, you need to work on your accents
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
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.