Slashdot Mirror


How the US Lost Its China Complaint On IP

An anonymous reader writes "The World Trade Organization yesterday released its much-anticipated decision involving a US complaint against China over its protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. The US quickly proclaimed victory, with newspaper headlines trumpeting the WTO panel's requirement that China reform elements of its intellectual property laws. Yet the reality is somewhat different. As Michael Geist notes, the US lost badly on key issues such as border measures and criminal IP enforcement, with the international trade body upholding the validity of China's laws."

167 comments

  1. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IP laws are ridiculous imho.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kind of sad that such a simple statement is being modded up, mostly because of the truth of the matter.

    2. Re:Good by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      IMHO, it's an implementation problem. I would suggest IP to last 1-2 years, non-renewable. Then it would become public domain. It would democratize innovation and the incentive to invest in reseach will still be there.

    3. Re:Good by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      I think the results are terrible. They upheld the ideological basis for the laws, while reserving the right to selectively enforce. So you can't make a business model around helping make cultural works more accessible to the masses, and pretty much every citizen of China is guilty of violating them, so anyone can be picked up off the street for offending a public official and charged with violating copyright.

      I'm ashamed to live in the western world today...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Good by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IP laws are the reason the GPL works.

      Seriously, with IP, the US would not be relevant in the global economy. IP is a major export from the US, and without it, we could not possibly sustain an economy based on producing goods in other countries.

      What is ridiculous is the tolerance the government seems to have for IP abuse.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Good by arekusu_ou · · Score: 0

      Ashamed to live in the western world today?

      As opposed to the last couple decades?

      Although I do agree with you, arbituary and selective justice is no justice at all. Too bad the "business" model of that has been put in practice for so many years in terms of motor vehicle violations, moving and parking, as well as various civil and criminal cases. General business regulations. One law for the politicians and elite of society and another for the masses.

      Nothing new here, just watching the same ol' parade keep passing on by.

    6. Re:Good by furby076 · · Score: 1

      How is this insightful? To the AC - they are ridiculous, in your honest opinion because you believe you should get something for free. So XYZ company can spend millions in R&D but they don't deserve to make a profit on it. G...G..

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    7. Re:Good by hobbit · · Score: 1

      What's really sad is that so many of us think that way, not because IP laws are ridiculous in and of themselves, but because the term of copyright has been stretched to ridiculous lengths.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    8. Re:Good by wintermute000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean: many people everywhere is guilty of violating them, esp. in countries where the cost of software is a much greater proportion of income than in developed countries.

      I do not know anybody that does not pirate software who is aware how to (i.e. asking someone for a copied CD). And yes I live in a developed country (Australia) that has signed on to your draconian DCMA provisions (thanks 'Free' Trade Agreement, great negotiating there boys).

      People in glass houses and all that.... if there is a geek out there who has never copied a single mp3 or divx or whataever (and that includes the old fashioned tape recorder copies) then I'll be damned. All these self righteous 'i have never pirated and never will' postings are pure hot air

      the basic problem is that people will pirate if its easier, cheaper and more convenient than getting the official version. Like every other form of prohibited behaviour (any of the vices etc.) you do not get at the problem by enforcement, history has conclusively demonstrated this. You need to give people a compelling reason NOT to pirate and tip the price / convenience equation so that people will not bother pirating. Making it easy and convenient e.g. 5 dollar full HD downloads with no DRM off blazing fast servers, or new physical discs - I guarantee you it will work, at least better than the current model. Observe steam, amazon and the new itunes, all growing at gangbuster rates. Or how about that all you can eat music subscription model currently doing the rounds (very profitably too) in Korea? Even far out ideas e.g. $X tax per broadband connection, download whatever you like.

      As for software, we all know 1k for office is stupid, and pls do not turn this into another open source advocacy thread (and yes, I run linux at home)

    9. Re:Good by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You mean: many people everywhere is guilty of violating them, esp. in countries where the cost of software is a much greater proportion of income than in developed countries.

      So then it's OK for the developed world to subsidize software that people don't really need in the first place?

      The Chinese government currency manipulates to take American jobs, invest in the US to avoid paying it's workers a decent wage, and somehow they're entitled to free ride on my purchases.

      I'm sorry, I'm not really seeing the justification. I could sort of understand if it were something like medicine or the means to grow food, but this is a set of items that for the most part can be replaced and are definitely not vital to life.

      And for non-China countries, there's still that last paragraph. I'm not sure what the point of pirating software is when there are more pressing things to do, and software programs for free that do just fine.

    10. Re:Good by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IP laws are the reason the GPL works.

      If reverse engineering and unlimited copying were completely legal, the GPL would just be the default state of things. Removing obfuscation on code is pretty easy, pirates do it all the time. So is disassembly and reverse engineering. If it was legal, there would simply be no way to release proprietary software, short of massive NDAs and other explicit legal contracts. All other copyrighted/patented/trademarked things are easy to reproduce in fully functional form.

      What is ridiculous is the tolerance the government seems to have for IP abuse.

      No more ridiculous than the artificial limit of supply imposed on things that have a nearly zero cost of reproduction.

    11. Re:Good by I_Voter · · Score: 1

      DamnStupidElf wrote:
      No more ridiculous than the artificial limit of supply imposed on things that have a nearly zero cost of reproduction.
      ----------
      Who do you think you are? Adam Smith?
      Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.

      Everybody knows Adam Smith was a damm Socialist. Neo-Liberalism is in!
      End Sarcasm

      I_Voter
      My incomplete and depressing web site.
      Political Power in the U.S.

    12. Re:Good by wintermute000 · · Score: 1

      No you self righteous twit, I'm pointing out its human nature and to try to cure it via enforcement is like trying to hold back the tides. Various factors e.g. relative pricing encourage or discourage this trend. In this case, its a big incentive.

      A free ride on your purchase... HA HA HA HA - sounds like Joe the plumber moaning about having his taxes go to social security. Last time I checked MS was doing just fine... do you really think if their profits increased in China you would get lower prices... NO YOU WOULD NOT

      As for manipulation - what do you think the last two centuries of western capitalism was based on, ooh I don't know, exploitation of 3rd world resources is somewhere in the mix, colonialism, now lets see US foreign policy since the second world war, IMF/world bank 'shock therapy' forced prescriptions, overthrowing south american govts so the big corporates can continue leeching, Haliburton in Iraq..... My brain explodes at your self righteousness. Soft economic warfare sounds pretty benign to me and nothing more than what the US has done to other countries for many years.

  2. In Communist China... by Jizzbug · · Score: 0

    ...IP kills you!

    --

    -=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
    1. Re:In Communist China... by binarylarry · · Score: 0, Troll

      In capitalist America, IP laws kill you!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:In Communist China... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      In capitalist America, IP laws kill you!

      The problem is that American capitalism has already had far too much success in persuading other countries that US law (particularly with regard to IP) applies to everyone else too.

      It's often a precondition of so-called "free-trade" agreements that usually result in everyone except the US getting shafted. Hence here in Australia, our FTA has saddled us with IP agreements which are recognised by our own legislative committees approximately as "lamentably and inexcusably flawed". I'm too lazy to check that exact quote, but it's out there in public domain.

  3. Doesn't sound very American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What are we, Hamas now? By not completely losing we win?

    1. Re:Doesn't sound very American by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, the Iraqi Information Minister needed to get a job SOMEWHERE!

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  4. why bother about their laws being implemented by crazybit · · Score: 2, Informative

    outside US borders?

    What's next? trying to push a world wide patriot act?

    --
    - Human knowledge belongs to the world
    1. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by xero314 · · Score: 5, Informative

      why bother about their laws being implemented outside US borders?

      This is not about US laws being upheld on foreign soil. It's about two very specific international contracts between China, the US and many other countries. The two agreements in question are the Bern Convention and TRIPS. These are agreements the US and China both entered into voluntarily.

      The decision basically states that china is not fully compliant with the Bern Convention, but they are within the letter of the TRIPS agreement.

      Sometimes it not about the US trying to throw it's weight around, because sometimes countries have agreements they have to uphold just like individuals within a country.

    2. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Individuals can be fined or imprisoned. What exactly is the USA going to do if China tells them to fuck off?

      Start a war? Quite frankly China would probably wipe out the USA if it came to that.

    3. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by A+Commentor · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the article, China only lost a minor copyright issue. China refused to recognized copyrights for articles that are "unconstitutional or immoral." The WTO said they needed to. All of the other complaints were dismissed.

      --

      Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com

    4. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is not about US laws being upheld on foreign soil. It's about two very specific international contracts between China, the US and many other countries. The two agreements in question are the Bern Convention and TRIPS.

      From the TRIPS wikipedia link:
      TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994. Its inclusion was the culmination of a program of intense lobbying by the United States, supported by the European Union, Japan and other developed nations.

      From the Bern Convention wikipedia link:
      The United States initially refused to become party to the Convention since it would have required major changes in its copyright law, particularly with regard to moral rights, removal of general requirement for registration of copyright works and elimination of mandatory copyright notice. This led to the Universal Copyright Convention in 1952 [as an alternative to the Berne Convention] to accommodate the wishes of the United States. But on March 1, 1989, in the U.S. "Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" came into force and the United States became a party to the Berne Convention, making the Universal Copyright Convention obsolete.

      The USA has always had a strong policy of exporting and forcing shitty laws (on)to other countries.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we can still out nuke them. And you wherever you are. And everybody else for good measure.

      At some point, people are going to realize that nuclear weapons force everyone that has them to cooperate. We (the human race, not just the USA) really can end life on this planet as we know it, so we should stop with the "we will end you" crap.

    6. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA has always had a strong policy of exporting and forcing shitty laws (on)to other countries.

      Truth.

    7. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes it not about the US trying to throw it's weight around, because sometimes countries have agreements they have to uphold just like individuals within a country.

      Hmm... You mean like the Kyoto Protocol?

    8. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Nah, it wouldn't even be mutual destruction. We'd be severely hurt, and China would be destroyed. But they key point is that China can't afford to lose us, and we can't afford to lose China. We're trading partners... all this is just haggling over details.

    9. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Funny

      that would be an agreement the US never agreed to, so no.

    10. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sometimes it not about the US trying to throw it's weight around, because sometimes countries have agreements they have to uphold just like individuals within a country."

      This makes me want to barf in my mouth. The US is one of the worst offenders in the world scene for breaking agreements.

      Here, I'll help you a litte:
      http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/un.html
      http://www.stopusa.be/scripts/texte.php?section=BS&langue=3&id=18022
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban-American_Treaty

    11. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because sometimes countries have agreements they have to uphold just like individuals within a country.

      How is that compatible with democracy, though? (Generally speaking; obviously, China is not an example there.)

      Yes, you may say if a democratically-elected government (administration/parliament) signs or ratifies such a contract, that's perfectly democratic, but I don't think it is.

      I mean, imagine that parliament made a law that said "this law cannot be changed in any way by future parliaments". Obviously, that's undemocratic, right? It'd be because the current people would take away sovereignty from future generations, which is something they cannot do, just like - say - the majority cannot vote to take rights away from a minority.

      How are international conventions different, though?

      (And for that matter, there's also the issue that for "normal" contracts, there is an established system of law to deal with these. What established system of international law is there, and what does it derive its justification from?)

    12. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by ozphx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Good luck with the nuclear escalation plan there retard. Think everyone else wouldn't be joining in and obliterating you crazy bastards if you tried?

      You would be destroyed by China in a land war - you can barely keep on top of a bunch of loonies with AKs in the middle east as it is - and youve been there almost 20 years off and on.

      They are capable of kinetically intercepting satellites with a rocket shot from a moving vehicle. Closing velocity of 12km/sec.

      Last the USA tried to knock a satellite out of orbit, they missed. With an explosive projectile as well. Not seeing much technological advantage to pull there...

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    13. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by EdIII · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nuclear escalation over imaginary property may be retarded, but so is the "my penis is bigger than your penis" argument that this has become.

      The U.S would not be remotely destroyed by China in a land war. In fact, I don't think they could take East LA without outnumbering the people there five to one.

      You cannot compare a police action against Iraq against an invasion from China. There are two different motives. One is complete destruction, the other is to force a regime change. China would have the same problems on U.S soil as the U.S has on Iraqi soil.

      It's a completely stupid argument anyways. The U.S could never start a land war against China, and China could never start a land war against the U.S. How on Earth could the U.S establish a beach head anywhere near China that the Chinese military could not obliterate within hours? Do you really think the U.S Navy has enough assets to throw against China to maintain a successful beach head to begin moving troops and assets in preparation for strategic operations against targets inland? Not in our wildest dreams. China does not have enough assets to do it either. High numbers of troops don't mean diddly crap when they are thousands of miles away from their targets.

      There is no way that either side can move that many troops uncontested across the Pacific Ocean. It's impossible, unless performed with absolute stealth. What then? 2 million Chinese against California where a considerable civilian population is armed? National Guard, Army, Marines, Air Force responding?

      I think you watched too much Red Dawn. The real challenges in moving assets, maintaining communication and supply lines, and overwhelming the opposition with numbers or technology are not just non-trivial, but damn near insurmountable for the U.S and China with respect to each other.

      The only option in a war between us would nuclear or economically based. We would need to destroy infrastructure and targets remotely. That would not last very long as both sides are pretty damn good at it.

      Furthermore, from the Chinese perspective they would only want our complete destruction if it came to it, which does not involve a land war. They have enough problems with their own people struggling against the government. They don't want the task of trying to oppress U.S Citizens and pushing their own political ideologies onto us. Hell, they have not even really done that with Hong Kong.

    14. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Hao+Wu · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you asked Britain in the 1800s, China had no right to refuse the "free trade" of importing opium no matter who it killed.

      Following China's defeat in the Second Opium War in 1858, China was forced to legalize opium and began massive domestic production. Importation of opium peaked in 1879 at 6,700 tons, and by 1906, China was producing 85% of the world's opium, some 35,000 tons, and 27% of its adult male population was addicted--13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium yearly. From 1880 to the beginning of the Communist era, the British attempted to discourage the use of opium in China, but this effectively promoted the use of morphine, heroin, and cocaine, further exacerbating the problem of addiction. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Prohibition_and_conflict_in_China

      For losing to the British invasion, China had to pay $15 million in restitution to British merchants, open their ports to the drug trade, and cede Hong Kong to Britain.

      But they were only enforcing trade agreements!

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    15. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Snaller · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "These are agreements the US and China both entered into voluntarily."

      Of course its not the whole country who are behind this, its a tiny minority of (honest?) politicians who have signed this. A lot of people are against the ability to do a job once and then expect to get paid over and over for it again.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    16. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by chord.wav · · Score: 1

      You are trying to be funny right? Or you just opened your eyes?

      In Argentina, if you want to start a new business you have to sign a US-provided paper and put your fingerprint on it stating that the busines will not support terrorists organizations. It IS a US-imposed requirement through the WTO or any other like that, can't remember exactly what agancy or boty required it. I know cause I had to do it.
      Regardless that I wouldn't support terrorist, and as stupid as it seems to me (Terrorist supporters tend to lie from time to time, you know) it, makes you wonder WTF?!

      Just imagine what your face would be if you decide to form an LLC and they present you an argentine paper stating something like that and requiring to put your fingerprint on it.

      And I didn't even had to go to a US-border!

    17. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      It's an international treaty - this gives the US rights against other countries, as well as providing rights to other countries against the US. Both sides should be able to rely on the treaty to be fulfilled by the other side. There is even an agreed method to arbitrate conflicts, and the US used that agreed method.

    18. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Cowmonaut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In our defense, I don't think you should legislate morals. But that's all I can say I agree with. Removing a requirement to register your copyright, and mandatory copyright notices aren't a great idea IMO. Please note though, that in the case of TRIPS it wasn't just the US. Corporations generally don't belong to a country but will have a lobbying presence in many. Many EU nations and Japan are just as much to blame for TRIPS as the US and arguing otherwise just shows how biased you are.

    19. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      In our defense, I don't think you should legislate morals.

      The "moral rights" the GP was referring to aren't really "morals" in the common sense of the word. They refer to a particularly European view of copyright as protecting authors from misrepresentation and distortion of their work. Additionally, the U.S. actually has implemented a form of moral rights for specific visual works.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    20. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by arekusu_ou · · Score: 0

      The US rely too much on potential foreign nationals in their infrastructure, that's a weakness.

      And the Chinese government does not view it's population as something to protect, they view them as commodoties.

      Mao made a joke on his visit to the US president, I think it was Carter at the time, in discussing trade agreements, he said they had an excess of women, would you like to take some?

      When you view things as commodoties, you can easily sacrifice them if it furthers your goal in the long run.

      You're right though, a land war between the US and China is unreasonable. Technology is the forefront of any massive battles, and wiping out a nation with a heavy reliance on technology in their infrastructure is a better way. Communication satellites? Network attack?

      And whats the point in occupying the US? Their closed culture has a disdain for westerners and western values. It's not like they can't reverse engineer any technology they happen to find surviving. And its not like they are short on people to populate the new country, or even cheap slave level labor.

      As far as NEEDING the US. They're not exactly that rich that they're importing alot of luxuries from the US...does the US still manufacture anything they export to China that China couldn't if push came to shove manufacture themselves or import from someone else who would LOVE to have China's business?

      China doesn't NEED to export to the US. There are plenty of other countries in the world, and push comes to shove, they can always increase arm trade to places that hate the US. Win-win there really. And even if they are hit financially a bit, they'll simply let the population suffer....more. Commodoties, only as useful as they remain useful, when they become a liability, they are no longer useful and are therefore expendable as long as THAT is beneficial.

      Art of War, know your enemy. Survival trait, if wild assumptions makes you an ass, wild assumptions in a fight will make you a dead ass.

      And not to mention...they actually track trade deficit with China don't they?

      http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2008

      11 out of the 12 months.

      Export to China $66 billion. Import from China $312 billion. Seems like US needs Chinese goods more than they need US. US economy could not handle a hit to massive inflation losing a source of cheap products.

      No I think US supremacy in this world is a fallacy long since forgotten by the rest of the world. At most, hate of the US supremacy is remembered still.

    21. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by furby076 · · Score: 1

      Yea and China signed it voluntarily. The US has a lot of weight...so does China. So lets not make it look like we are the only power left on this planet... there are other countries with some muscle and China has it.

      They signed the contract now they should honor it....or is Honor no longer a part of the Chinese gov't culture.

      And btw, if you don't think China and other countries heavily lobby the reforms they want then you are very very naive.

      What is with slashdot crowd and their (mostly) views on renegging on contracts. Guess what folks - gov'ts sign contracts - they should honor it. Guess what folks - music artists, especially the unknowns working in their garage, sign contracts - they should honor it. You may look back and say "wow this contract sucks", but you didn't complain when it worked for you. Honor your signature.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    22. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, I've been reading slashdot for a while and I don't have alot of time to discuss meaningless crap with you cocky jackasses. I'm unloading now while I have the free time!!!

      When a programmer or group of programmers or scientists do tons of R&D and develop something that everyone uses and takes for granted or steals, we have the anti U.S. a$$holes trying to make a crooked and twisted point, thus covering $hitty back stabbing countries a$$es, This makes me crack up at how stupid you jackasses are.

      The tech the American tax payer and military have developed will only get given to or stolen by countries that stab us in the back and they are the same players. They always will be.. I have to admit. Thank god for the military industrial complex these days... You can puke up wiki links and google searches all you want. You are only provided with what is already known and given to you by the people who run the show..

      The experts know what is not known, these are the same people that gave you electricity, the internet, TV, the personal computer, computer hardware, fiber optic cable, the TRANSISTOR, modern flight, superior space tech, superior military tech and the list goes on and on!! Don't even try to argue these points morons, it's true and it's fact. And we, the so called uneducated American tax payer and evil US military gave all the consumer tech to the world for free and you gave us shit in comparison to this day! So you young idiots that spew anti U.S. crap and foreigners that leach off U.S. tech can keep whining and making shitty weak points..

      We will continue to do the real work while the world leaches off the American tax payer, the DOD and the military industrial complex for ideas.. My 2 cents to all the morons that think they have a grain of intellect or good point on china or any other dishonest country.

        To those in the US, if you think the rest of the world is so great, denounce your citizenship and LEAVE! or shut your traps and open your eyes to the criminals that steal our design patents, ideas and everything else. Google that!! Yes there are Americans like me out there and the majority of them are in military tech, thank god for that because this generation needs to grow a spine, do real research 'on your own by actually testing shit or forming your own opinions instead of google or wiki crap' and tell the foreigners to screw off with their anti American blather, just put them in their damn place already, quit being silent cowards, it makes us sick..

      God bless America and my military brothers! I'll check back in a few months, I have real obligations to deal with.

    23. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by hedwards · · Score: 1

      China has a large military, but they run it like the Communists in Russia did. Sure there's a huge number of people in their military, but I'd wager just about anything that it'd end up going down like Russia versus Germany. With huge losses on both sides, but with the larger military losing far more personnel during most of the campaign. It wasn't until winter and the cold that the Russians were able to keep up.

      Communal weapons aren't effective during military campaigns, either you have the weapons or you don't. And I'd be skeptical as to whether or not the Chinese have the other components to succeed.

      They definitely wouldn't put forth a brilliant strategic campaign. The Chinese have many, many virtues, but creativity isn't one of them. Creativity doesn't really go down well in a country that focused on harmony and stability.

    24. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by xero314 · · Score: 1

      As far as NEEDING the US...China doesn't NEED to export to the US.

      You are correct that there are plenty of countries willing to buy Chinese made products. Chinese made American products that is. China would have considerably less to export if it were not for US, and other countries that support IP, outsourcing the work to them. The Chinese economy is built almost entirely of product export and foreign outsourcing.

      And before you think you know jack about world economy and politics just try and comprehend why China agreed to Bern and TRIPS in the first place. It's certainly not because they could stand on there own.

    25. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by xero314 · · Score: 1

      The US is one of the worst offenders in the world scene for breaking agreements.

      I agree the US is "one of the worst", just like all other countries that have any amount of power and are capable or breaking agreements. But that does not change the fact that in this case this is just an international organization determining if two international agreements are being honored correctly.

      But you would have known this if you knew the meaning of the word "sometimes."

    26. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by xero314 · · Score: 1

      A lot of people are against the ability to do a job once and then expect to get paid over and over for it again.

      I suggest those people get out and vote for representatives that support their point of view. My guess is that those "lot" of people are not a majority and most likely not those people that actually spent the time and effort to produce works that happen to be easily copyable.

    27. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by grumpyman · · Score: 1
      Sometimes it not about the US trying to throw it's weight around, because sometimes countries have agreements they have to uphold just like individuals within a country.

      Like NAFTA?

    28. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by EdIII · · Score: 1

      As far as NEEDING the US...China doesn't NEED to export to the US.

      You are correct that there are plenty of countries willing to buy Chinese made products. Chinese made American products that is. China would have considerably less to export if it were not for US, and other countries that support IP, outsourcing the work to them. The Chinese economy is built almost entirely of product export and foreign outsourcing.

      And before you think you know jack about world economy and politics just try and comprehend why China agreed to Bern and TRIPS in the first place. It's certainly not because they could stand on there own.

      You replied to the wrong poster :) I never made that statement.

    29. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Nevermind my last post. Freakin Slashdot. Your post shows up directly under mine as a reply and the other poster is hidden as anonymous. I apologize.

    30. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by arekusu_ou · · Score: 0

      First, we're not delving into any complicated world economy or political discussion. These are all fairly simple concepts that have been talked about for decades, that we're just rehashing.

      Second, the simple fact of partially capitulating or agreeing to pointless requests and not actually following through with it, does not mean anything.
      Organizations, companies, people in general have been doing it for millenniums.

      Look at it as, taking a loss for a greater gain.
      Nodding your head and agreeing to shut them up.
      Agreeing to something minor to avoid drawing attention to the real issue. (Like this article is implying)

      The fact that China's back at the table after 14 years of not doing much regarding TRIPS besides the occasional high-profile raids (which they probably have their own reasons why it was beneficial to them), doesn't show that they were forced to agree to it due to necessity. It only shows that they paid lip service and got some benefits out of it.

      Here's a car analog for you. You change your engine oil every 3,000 miles because it makes it easier for the engine and you get some benefit. Doesn't mean the engine needed the oil change, it could have gone to 6,000 miles. Or even 9,000 though that'd be silly.

      http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t272113.htm
      To lead off with, to point out there are other countries.

      Here's another analogy, I like analogies.
      Wal-mart and chain supermarkets does things cheap, they hurt local business, they have horrendous practices, they have activists against them. Yet...hordes of people will still go to them, and get excited when they expand. It's not because people hated the local business, but it's because people do what they need to do, sometimes have little other choices, and come on the savings.

      You're under the impression other countries will stop doing business with China if they do not take the WTO's agreement as seriously as the Western countries want them to? Some sort of embargo? On behalf of the US leading the charge? THAT'S laughable.

      And as far as politics go, my examples from earlier? Think back into history.

    31. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by xero314 · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure what most of your rant was about but it had little at all to do with my comment and so I'll skip right to the relevant part.

      You're under the impression other countries will stop doing business with China if they do not take the WTO's agreement as seriously as the Western countries want them to?

      I never once even implied that all other countries would stop doing business with China. I very specifically stated "US, and other countries that support IP." All I was pointing out is that the Chinese economy relies very heavily on these countries, (US, Canada, much of Europe) and not only for export but for having products to produce and export.

    32. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In our defense, I don't think you should legislate morals. But that's all I can say I agree with.

      What the heck do you base laws on in US? Immorals? That would explain a lot.

      And here is the mandatory wikipedia article about moral rights, that you should have read before you posted.

    33. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "I suggest those people get out and vote for representatives that support their point of view. "

      There would be no point, the current so called democracy doesn't really allow any kind of detailed control - there is too munch money in not changing it, so it won't.

      "My guess is that those "lot" of people are not a majority ..."

      Ah yes, we can always guess. One of the amusing stats when Bush was elected was there were more people downloading at the time that who actually voted for him.

      "... and most likely not those people that actually spent the time and effort to produce works that happen to be easily copyable."

      That's like saying people who are against capital punishment doesn't go around killing people.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    34. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by arekusu_ou · · Score: 0

      Fine, I'll explain my rant as you called it.

      First you said, China agreed to TRIPP because they needed to, and I was pointing out how such an action neither show they needed to, nor have their subsequent actions over the decade showed they cared much.

      Using a car analogy to explain just because you do something that's beneficial doesn't mean that you had no alternative even if it's less beneficial. Further more, I was explaining to you, why people can do something...yet not mean it. I would have thought that such a concept wouldn't need MORE explanation but I guess it does.

      Second you said,

      China would have considerably less to export if it were not for US, and other countries that support IP, outsourcing the work to them. The Chinese economy is built almost entirely of product export and foreign outsourcing.

      So I made a comparison of economics on a national scale to economics between countries to generalize a relationship to China, comparing them to Walmart, and how other countries, even those that support IP isn't going to stop doing business with them. And if you're saying that, you're not saying they would stop doing business with them...then what? How are they going to hurt them if they aren't stopping business with them.

      Recent history has shown that countries are willing to overlook things. The last Olympics was big example, especially with all the protests over it. Hrm, wasn't the US a participant despite the protests? Now I can understand where you'd think that the US might hold IP policing to a higher priority than accused human rights violations, accusation of invading and occupying Tibet, and the lack of a Democracy when the US would invade and occupy another country over it. I know that with the financial problems in the country, the federal deficit, and lots of states making major cuts like California (no I don't live in CA), they are wasting time trying to create (or did they succeed, I don't recall) a Federal IP Policing agency for the benefits of corporations with the power of federal agents.

      I never once even implied that all other countries would stop doing business with China. I very specifically stated "US, and other countries that support IP."

      You're under the impression other countries will stop doing business with China if they do not take the WTO's agreement as seriously as the Western countries want them to?

      And if you're nitpicking at words, I didn't say either that all countries would stop doing business with China, I just said other countries.

      I also pointed out in my first post that, losing some or even a lot of business isn't likely a concern to China's government. They have other options. Other people to sell to. Other things to sell like Arms which we can all agree on they have been refraining from openly selling extremely dangerous weapons because they don't want to thumb their noses at the UN countries yet. Their population is already largely poor and in theory suffering by US standards and it doesn't deter the government in any way.

    35. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by xero314 · · Score: 1

      There would be no point, the current so called democracy doesn't really allow any kind of detailed control - there is too munch money in not changing it, so it won't.

      That's a good way to make sure you never have to feel responsible for anything. Just keep telling yourself that there is nothing you can do. Lucky for you those of us that actually understand the system are doing out best to make sure checks and balance are kept.

      The only reason the country is in the shape it is in is because the citizens chose for it to be that way, either by direct act or complacency.

      That's like saying people who are against capital punishment doesn't go around killing people.

      You analogy makes no sense what so ever.

    36. Re:why bother about their laws being implemented by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "That's a good way to make sure you never have to feel responsible for anything."

      Its a factual description.

      "Just keep telling yourself that there is nothing you can do."

      I don't have the health to be neither terrorist or try to run for anything (of course even the president suffers failures as the news just has shown)

      "Lucky for you those of us that actually understand the system are doing out best to make sure checks and balance are kept."

      Delusional.

      "You analogy makes no sense what so ever"

      Only because you aren't clever enough to understand that either. He essentially said "People who are against this system aren't using it" - No - of course not.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  5. Sadly by longacre · · Score: 5, Funny

    WTO knows who its soon-to-be-daddy is.

  6. Communists don't believe in imaginary property... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do China's border measures, which allow customs officials to donate, auction, or sell to the rights holder confiscated goods, violate TRIPS?

    (FTFA)

    China can take your bootleg XP discs on grounds you pirated them...and then sell them? lolwut?

  7. the real problem is enforcement by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I spend a great deal of time in China. The real crux of the problem is that there is a WIDE gulf between the law and enforcement of the law (unless it involves anti-government behavior...then the gulf narrows quickly).

    I can easily go to any one of hundreds of locations that I know of (and I'm a damn foreigner) in Beijing and buy openly pirated movies and software. Sure, it is illegal to sell that stuff per the law books, but the government just doesn't care. And when they make some noise about caring, it's VERY temporary, the press gets their story and photos, and then it's back to business as usual.

    Government officials are profiting directly from winking at this illicit trade so there's little incentive for those lower on the totem poles to rock the boat. It's not uncommon for the owner of one of these illicit DVD/CD fabs to bring in the relative of some party official in as a "silent partner" to keep the heat off. Welcome to China. Now be quiet and enjoy your 10RMB DVD (complete with fancy packaging and liner notes) that can be had in most subway stations and street corners in Beijing...er...roughly 7% of the price I'd pay at my local Best Buy for the same title in similar packaging.....

    1. Re:the real problem is enforcement by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is the problem, full in your face style. No matter what trade agreements are agreed to, China is run differently internally than the USA or European Union countries. Going to the WTO is like asking a police officer to witness someone robbing your car all the while knowing that the police officer will not arrest the robber. I don't think anyone has a full grasp of what would happen if the US simply stopped doing business with China cold turkey style... So, this remains a problem.

    2. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Personally during my time in China, I liked the fact that DVD's were so cheap.
      From what I've heard, DVD companies initially tried selling DVD's in China for the same price they do in Western countries, and only the top business owners can afford that type of thing.
      China also has _far_ more problems that copyright infringement to get fixed first.
      During my time there as an English teacher, the boss I had (oh and this is at a school that is a business venture of a big foreign university!) took 150RMB off one of the Chinese girls that worked with me. She only got 1500RMB a month, often had to work 4 hours over time every day, and didn't get paid for it despite the law saying she should be.
      I went into my boss' office with a photocopy of the letter he'd given her saying he was taking 10% of her wages, because she had forgotten to sign her name in one day. Asked him what was up with it and got really pissed off at him, was close to walking out. I hate seeing others treated that way.
      I've thought about bringing this to the attention of the university that is in charge of the English school, but I doubt they'd do anything. It piss' me off that many institutions from rich countries criticize the treatment of workers in China, but go full steam ahead and exploit it themselves. Bloody hypocrites.
      I'm going to post this anonymously as at the moment I don't want to take any risks for when I go back there.
      Anyway, as I said, China has more issues to deal with than copyright infringement. Despite all the problems in China though, I recommend going there, I absolutely love the country, the food, and most of the people. If they could sort out the pollution problems I think it would be the most beautiful country on earth.

    3. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess what would happen is the US would go cold turkey...

      And China would retaliate by selling all their US dollar bonds. You think the economic crisis is bad _NOW_?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    4. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Sanat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was a visiting American Scientist during my prolonged stay in China and was the first American that many Chinese seen since the Chiang Kai-shek stuff from the 50's and 60's. I traveled some with the president of the American company where I worked (he was American Chinese) and so I had a lot of opportunities to explore many place that most Americans would not be admitted.

      I literally traveled from one end of China to another. I am rather a low key guy but because of my title then each Chinese providence would hold a banquet in my honor and so we would drink wu-shing pigu (5 star beer) and a clear liquor that I forget the name of but it was potent... anyway, I found the Chinese to be a most proper group of individuals and were good to their word... except if government was involved then they followed the ticket that was being trailed out... probably for self preservation.

      I really enjoyed the people and loved the environment... being raised originally on a farm in Ohio made me understand a lot more than if I was a city slicker. What I did find though was that the average person did what they had to do to get along in life. If it meant duplicating a song or a data file then it was not a problem for them... I must reiterate that their values were neither greater nor less than mine but rather that they did what they had to do to survive in the economy of that era.

      Sometimes I wish that I had transfered there permanently. My heart is very similar to that of the typical Chinese individual and they had a warmth that I find missing in today's life in America.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    5. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right, the "Vast Western Conspiracy" to talk trash about China. That's the sort of thing I hear from Chinese students who have little experience with other societies.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    6. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who would buy them? Much of the "chinese" industry are US and European corporations with US and European stockholders. As the US falls so does China and everybody else that bet on the US economy. It's a global economy afterall.

      We are looking into the abyss of a world wide global depression.

    7. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone has a full grasp of what would happen if the US simply stopped doing business with China cold turkey style

      I'd say, it would benefit every country inbetween. I don't think US citizens would unanimously stop using cheaper china produced products; they'd just be a little less cheaper for passing through another country.

    8. Re:the real problem is enforcement by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      The real real problem is that there's a tendency for press and web-sites that sometimes distort the truth against china, due to a general feeling that China is a very harsh place, etc.

      There, fixed it for him.

      The problem is, newspapers that praise China, are less likely to be purchased by the general population, who prefer reading articles that agree with their own view.

      In a small way, it's related to money.

    9. Re:the real problem is enforcement by troll8901 · · Score: 2, Informative

      wu-shing pigu (5 star beer)

      Suggest you call it either "wu-shing pi-chiu" or "wu-xin pi-jiu" instead. "Pigu" sounds like ass... I swear!

      clear liquor that I forget the name of but it was potent

      The Chinese, Japanese and other Asians are great at making wine out of anything - rice, barley, wheat, and so forth. One mouthful is enough to make me drunk.

      You've lead a very interesting life. And you're a real Scientist with a 3-digit ID!

    10. Re:the real problem is enforcement by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Kindof a nice little baseline on the actual intrinsic value of such things.  7%.  Good to know.

    11. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Who would buy them?

      Imagine you're an exporter/importer in need of some dollars. Who do you buy from? The cheapest ones being sold, of course.

      Now imagine China trying to slowly dump all their dollar reserves by selling at slightly less than the current going rate. Suddenly the supplier of dollars will be China, not the US, and the dollar will fall as far as China wants.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    12. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went into my boss' office with a photocopy of the letter he'd given her saying he was taking 10% of her wages, because she had forgotten to sign her name in one day. Asked him what was up with it and got really pissed off at him, was close to walking out. I hate seeing others treated that way.

      It's not clear whether this was in fact an injustice - sounds like the boss docked her wages for failing to record her time. Many companies will fine or fire employees for not keeping proper timekeeping, because the business will be fined by the government or sued by employees if their timekeeping is not correct. Similarly, bar employees will be outright fired for not obeying liquor laws, because the bar will be shut down if a violation occurs. These are serious offenses to the business, even if the offense is as simple as not signing your name one day. Since the offense to serious to the business, the punishment to the employee is also serious.

      I've thought about bringing this to the attention of the university that is in charge of the English school, but I doubt they'd do anything. It piss' me off that many institutions from rich countries criticize the treatment of workers in China, but go full steam ahead and exploit it themselves.

      So, it's wrong to criticize bad treatment and yet do nothing. You criticized bad treatment, and yet did nothing. Oh wait, you "got really pissed off" and "thought about" doing something.

      Bloody hypocrites.

      By your own definition, you are too.

    13. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      What I did find though was that the average person did what they had to do to get along in life. If it meant duplicating a song or a data file then it was not a problem for them... I must reiterate that their values were neither greater nor less than mine but rather that they did what they had to do to survive in the economy of that era.

      This is a... strange couple of sentences for me. You're really equating "surviv[ing] in the economy of that era" to copying a song or program? If we're really going to count a right to have a particular song or piece of data among the things needed for survival, I think we've lost all sense of what surviving means. I suspect a trip to most countries in Africa would refresh the mind as to what it means to do what one needs to do to survive. It certainly has nothing to do with putting a pirated song on your knockoff iPod.

      You should have simply left it at a difference of opinion. Everybody likes to believe their set of opinions are superior--after all, that's why they're our opinions right?--but many people at least will be able to superficially recognize that they're not necessarily universal. The Chinese don't care all that much about copyright? No biggie for me (though I do have a problem with pretending to abide by rules that they don't). No need to make it more than that.

    14. Re:the real problem is enforcement by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What he was saying is that it wouldn't matter because any real damage it caused the US would be echoed into the world economy and it would limit itself.

      Suppose you were the importer, when your US dollar buys three times as much US goods, you only need one third of them. When you holdings lose two thirds of their value, you don't have the money to spend on importing so the demand drops. China doesn't regulate it's dollar on the open market either. It's artificially set so it isn't apparent that they could play the money game where they attempt to profit by creating a scheme like that.

      Besides, the actual need for Currency is pretty much mute any more. Everything is done globally with electronic transfers that are honored by international banks. On the scales that exporters/importers operate on, they just find a multinational bank and don't worry about it as long as they keep funds on both sides. The conversions fees are even smaller if not waived for items like this. Only small time operators like tourists and novelty brokers needs to worry about currency conversions like you mentioned.

    15. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I was going to mod you up.
      Then you said "mute"

    16. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suspect a trip to most countries in Africa would refresh the mind as to what it means to do what one needs to do to survive. It certainly has nothing to do with putting a pirated song on your knockoff iPod.

      But it does have a hell of a lot to do with selling a CD of pirated songs for 5 yuan to somebody who can afford an ipod.
      Try not to automatically assume someone is an idiot just because you don't immediately see where they are coming from.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    17. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If they could sort out the pollution problems I think it would be the most beautiful country on earth."

      IMHO, thats the issue they really need to sort out more than anything. I visited China around 40 years ago and saw an amazingly beautiful country (although very impoverished).

      Having returned recently it was quite heart-breaking to see how polluted much of the country had become. I don't dispute poverty has decreased massively on paper, but to be honest, the endless miles of cramped apartments in absolutely awful grey-concrete neighbourhoods devoid of nature or beauty (apart from the odd disgustingly polluted river) and with air you could immediately tell was unhealthy - didn't strike me as being particularly better than the poor rural communities I remember seeing decades ago.

      I love China, they have an absolutely amazing amount of culture, but they have paid an enormous enviromental price (in terms of their local enviroments rather than global warming type enviromental problems) and even if millions earn far more than before, thinking about the conditions so many now live in does still bring tears to my eyes.

    18. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Candid88 · · Score: 1

      I've found that to be so true.

      People don't read things like newspapers to learn about the world, they read them to confirm their already held assumptions.

      My already held assupmtion is that it all ties back to the fact noone likes to hear that they are wrong, whilst everyone likes to hear they are right!

    19. Re:the real problem is enforcement by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      Strangely, it applies to us Slashdot readers too.

      We (IT people) may stick to our point of views on IT issues. Yet we can discuss non-IT issues objectively.

      Non-IT persons may stick to their point of views on non-IT issues. Yet they can discuss IT issues objectively.

      (Blessed is the corporate tech support, for he/she can see both sides.)

    20. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Of course if the westeners were less greedy, they could reduce the price they want from this stuff. A "fair price" is not "what you can get away with"

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    21. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And China would retaliate by selling all their US dollar bonds. You think the economic crisis is bad _NOW_?

      Doubtful - at least as more than a symbolic gesture.

      Those bonds have substantial value to the Chinese. If they have 100 billion dollars worth of US bonds they're almost certain to get 100 billion dollars in cash over the next few decades as they mature. If they sell the whole thing for a million dollars then they get a million dollars worth of various currencies now. As an added bonus they REALLY tick off the US government. It would make it harder for the US government to issue new debt for a while, but I doubt it would cause the sky to fall. If the US actually tightened its belt and stopped running a deficit then it wouldn't have any impact at all (granted, that kind of spending discipline would make economic recovery more difficult).

      What it might do is trigger a small war of some kind, which the Chinese are not equipped to fight (they have no deep water navy as yet - so all the fighting will be in their own territory). China has a huge army, but unless it plans to swim the bearing strait it doesn't really have any way to leave the country unless they plan on invading the Ukraine (and the former soviet states do NOT mess around). They might be able to invade Taiwan but even that would be iffy (a few subs could take out a lot of troop transports, and there isn't that much land to defend with hidden anti-air defenses). The US wouldn't be interested in actually siezing the country or anything (which would be crazy with the size of their army), but they could just drop lots of bombs on bridges or anything else with a military application and watch their economy grind to a halt. Simply blockading their ports would pretty much cripple their export-driven economy, and cut off their oil supplies as an added bonus (you could bomb the few overland pipelines very easily).

      This would never actually happen in real life - since everybody knows it isn't worth anybody's time to get into this kind of a mess. The US and China will continue to trade words while the rich guys making the money make sure the borders stay open.

    22. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      (Blessed is the corporate tech support, for he/she can see both sides.)

      And yet is listened to by neither ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    23. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This would never actually happen in real life - since everybody knows it isn't worth anybody's time to get into this kind of a mess." ... rrriiight. Hey you heard about Iraq, right?

    24. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's not like even the US pays any attention to the dictates of the WTO.

    25. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seeing and understanding are very different things.

    26. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The clear liquor was probably baijiu which is pronounced, more or less, as "buy joe" and translates, unfortunately, as "white spirit".

    27. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What on earth do you mean by that? What exactly is your problem?

    28. Re:the real problem is enforcement by forcotton · · Score: 1

      Off topic but... pigu means butt in Chinese. Beer is pijiu.

    29. Re:the real problem is enforcement by mrrudge · · Score: 1

      Hey, nice sig, how often do you change it ?

    30. Re:the real problem is enforcement by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      During my time there as an English teacher

      It piss' me off

      Eyed laugh if it weren't so funny.

    31. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I guess what would happen is the US would go cold turkey...

      And China would retaliate by selling all their US dollar bonds. You think the economic crisis is bad _NOW_?

      That is *highly* unlikely. The United States is one of China's primary trading partners. And given that China a) has an economy heavily driven by a massive trade surplus, and b) is already suffering a massive economic blow thanks to the global financial crisis, the last thing they'd want to do is further damage that trade relationship.

      Sorry, no, China needs the US every bit as much as the US (in particular, the US consumer) needs China. Neither party is going to be interested in rocking that boat too hard.

    32. Re:the real problem is enforcement by furby076 · · Score: 1

      It's NEVER that simple. If the WTO sanctions China then a lot of gov'ts stop selling/buying with them. If they call in their US bonds now (assuming they could contractually do it, there may be a time stipulation) then we could retaliate with other things (e.g. providing them free humane services like medicine). The world markets are SO intertwined that neither country wants to go at a tit-for-tat. Our economy is hurting now, so is theirs. Again, it is never as simple as a one line answer "they have our bonds". We have stuff of theirs also.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    33. Re:the real problem is enforcement by furby076 · · Score: 1

      I hate seeing others treated that way. I've thought about bringing this to the attention of the university that is in charge of the English school, but I doubt they'd do anything. It piss' me off that many institutions from rich countries criticize the treatment of workers in China, but go full steam ahead and exploit it themselves. Bloody hypocrites.

      Apparantly you are too. You hate seeing others treated that way but you didn't do anything. You could have complained to the english school, anonymously, and at the same time complained to an English newspaper, anonymously. Instead you decided to do nothing, and I am willing to bet your "storming into his office" comment was a trumped up lie by you so you sound cool to the /. crowd.

      If you want to help someone, and you have written proof, you can always report it anonymously.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    34. Re:the real problem is enforcement by wintermute000 · · Score: 1

      Actually its Mutually Assured Destruction in its purest form.

      US owes tonnes of cash to China.
      China has tonnes of foreign reserves... and holds tonnes of bonds... and lends tonnes of cash... in US dollars.

      Do the math (or at least high school economics) - china selling US dollar bonds would drive down the value of their own reserves and remaining bonds / loan income. Lets not even get into trade income.

      Here is a good primer
      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4646

    35. Re:the real problem is enforcement by ubercam · · Score: 1

      Maybe he meant to say that after a few pijius the pigus look better.

    36. Re:the real problem is enforcement by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The main reason why they can't do it is that if they sold the bonds, they'd have to deal with the likelihood of the people rioting in the streets. The money that the Chinese government invests in the US is invested here so that they don't have to pay it to their workers.

      As such it allows them to keep the value of their currency weak and the cost of doing business low. If they were to call their loans, their currency would strengthen, and not just with respect to the US, it would strengthen across the board, making it much more difficult to keep people employed.

      But ultimately, it probably would end as MAD, it would be good for the US manufacturing sector had we not allowed one party to dismantle it so completely.

    37. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Artemis3 · · Score: 1

      It is the same in my country, it is the same in Peru, it is probably the same in most latin american countries, and i'm sure its pretty much the same in most countries. The fact that you can see people in the street selling unauthorized copies of movies, music, games and software is not going to change. Internet is putting then at some risk, because some will download the stuff for free to watch/play and delete rather than dealing with physical media. If the WTO starts getting nosy and bothersome, most countries would simply left. The media giants can try and sell authorized copies very cheap, like they do with movies in China, but don't expect the governments of the world to act as their private police. Some do knee to the pressure of the United States, and some outright defy it; most do some publicity raids here and there from time to time and then leave the stuff alone to prosecute real crime. IP enforcement is dying fast worldwide, as more and more generations growth without any restrictions about it (even tho this hurts Free Software a little). The main objective of the Swedish Pirate Party, to legalize all non profit sharing is not crazy, i'd say it's being pragmatic about the reality because those major US corporations keep living an illusion that needs to be shattered away for good.

      Multiplayer gaming with some form of subscription (to use their servers) is still working, except when the server software gets leaked and "private" servers appear all over (many korean games). Microsoft pretty much knew this would happen which is why they want to switch to a more enforceable subscription model, dropping selling of boxes and licenses and distributing "light" Windows editions which let you get online to subscribe to use various apps and features (a situation which do help Free Software). No matter your position on this issue, there is a hard reality out there. No amount of yelling of name calling or even laws/trade agreements will change the fact that, pretty much anywhere outside the USA you can cheaply get unauthorized copies of anything. If you want to have clear rules, lets formalize this situation and legalize non-profit sharing. Or keep living in your illusion, and get a lot of bad PR in the process (reinforcing the need to rebel)...

      --
      Artix
      Your Linux, your init.
    38. Re:the real problem is enforcement by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Yeah I laugh every time I read an article like this, you don't have to go as far as China to buy pirated shit, its everywhere in Mexico. There is really no point in enforcement because despite what they tell us, most countries couldn't give a shit if its happening

    39. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And China would retaliate by selling all their US dollar bonds. You think the economic crisis is bad _NOW_?

      Treasury bonds are in such demand right now, the yields on the 30-dayers are just 0.05%. Basically, people want to hold the U.S. government's debt, even if they aren't being paid to hold it. The Chinese might be able to push that yield back up to pre-crunch levels, but there's too much demand right now.

    40. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was fairly clear to me that this was an injustice. She had worked overtime for probably hundreds of hours, and not been paid for it, despite the law saying she must be. He only ever looked at peoples work hours or anything like that in order to find a reason to deduct money, he also tried it with many foreign teachers, who made it very clear that they'd walk out. He was a slimy bastard.

    41. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      often had to work 4 hours over time every day, and didn't get paid for it despite the law saying she should be.

      Sounds like my job. I'm due to finish in 25 minutes time, and my boss has just called the shop to tell me about a job he's doing, that requires a "complex install," involving networking. (He's an idiot who can't use DHCP correctly.) The mere mention of networking means that I'm probably going to have to go for a drive in my own time, he'll cover the fuel but not the wear and tear on the car, and will not pay me for my time, or even the meal that I'll have to buy (or starve).

      I don't live in China, I live in New Zealand, and the law says "Overtime is paid." He's decided that he pays me a salary so he doesn't have to pay me overtime, even for the mandatory stuff, but it's a wage so he doesn't have to pay me for any time I have off, that I don't have leave put aside for.

    42. Re:the real problem is enforcement by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Err... What? That's just... Wrong.

      Exporters/Importers aren't out after dollar-bills, they want to convert from one currency to another. International banks do not help, as they only hold what currencies you _already_ have.

      They do not provide any 'magic' currency conversion, electronic or not. When you need to pay in a different currency, you sell your 'dollars' and buy 'yen. Always. Even if it is your bank doing it for you.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    43. Re:the real problem is enforcement by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That's what I said..

      Exceept that the electronic conversions won't need real conversions as long as sufficient deposits exist at both places the organization foes business at.

  8. Haha by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the wto made a ruling against China which will obviously be ignored what are they going to do. Punitive measures? Oh lets stop trade with China, great idea. Kind of a silly system if you ask me.

    1. Re:Haha by piojo · · Score: 1

      If the wto made a ruling against China which will obviously be ignored what are they going to do. Punitive measures? Oh lets stop trade with China, great idea. Kind of a silly system if you ask me.

      If you think the economy is bad now, what do you think it will be like when we hurt every business that deals with china?

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    2. Re:Haha by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the wto made a ruling against China which will obviously be ignored what are they going to do. Punitive measures? Oh lets stop trade with China, great idea. Kind of a silly system if you ask me.

      The punitive measures are not "lets stop trade with China".

      Normally the WTO gives the wronged party permission to institute tariffs/duties on specific goods from the offending country, equal to the losses sustained by the aggrieved. Here's a recent example of the USA raising tariffs on cheese imported from Europe.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Haha by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 1

      > If you think the economy is bad now, what do you think it will be like when we hurt every business that deals with china?

      It would really suck. Somebody has to provide us with cheap shit. Otherwise we'll have to start working hard for it ourselves.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    4. Re:Haha by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Not as bad as it will hurt China, who can no longer sell them. The important point is, it would severely hurt both countries, so nothing will come of this. It's sabre-rattling to try to get the best deal.

    5. Re:Haha by troll8901 · · Score: 1

      All the bras will become more expensive. Think of the WOMEN!

    6. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how the USA deliberately created it, though - allow the stronger player to bully the weaker players. Of course, the USA never expected to not be the stronger player themselves...

    7. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China can turn around and sell to Europe. Then Europe can sell to the US, and everybody is happy.

    8. Re:Haha by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Sort of like when the WTO makes a ruling in Canada's favour, but the US chooses to ignore it anyways and rape us for millions?

  9. US lawyers by binaryseraph · · Score: 1

    Did the US outsource their Legal prosecution to the RIAA lawyers? jeez.

  10. Want to introduce patents disease into China, huh? by BhaKi · · Score: 1

    Just because the wise US forefathers saw patents as a meaningful concept doesn't mean everyone across the world share the same wisdom.

    --
    The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
  11. Re:Communists don't believe in imaginary property. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, they can donate, auction or sell them to the record company that the IP belongs to. If the company doesn't want to pay for them, then I guess the stuff is donated or destroyed. I really see nothing wrong there.

  12. Obvious answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Make the US dollar bonds worthless by spending made up USD like... like, um, politicians!

  13. We shouldn't even be trading with China by Tyrannicalposter · · Score: 1

    We shouldn't even be trading with China. By doing so we are propping up a repressive regime.

    First it was Nixon's ill conceived openess policy with China, then GW allowing them into the WTO.

    We would have been better off with India as a manufacturing base.

    1. Re:We shouldn't even be trading with China by furby076 · · Score: 1

      then GW allowing them into the WTO.

      Didn't know a US president can let someone or deny someone from getting into the WTO. Here I always thought it was the WTO who decided this.

      Open trade does work - it helped with soviet russia. When people see that others have it better they soon want that better. It takes time, especially in such a controlled environment, but it does happen. China has improved a TON since Nixon. Just gotta wait until the current leadership dies out and hope their kids are a bit more open-minded. Hopefully these kids were into sex, drugs and rock'n'roll and after they grew up to adults they still remember the good-ole free days and want to let others have freedom.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  14. IPKat by thesp · · Score: 5, Informative

    IPKat has a very nice analysis, as usual, here:

    http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2009/01/breaking-news-wto-panel-report-on-us.html.

    However, IPKat concludes that it's more of a score-draw than a loss by the US.

  15. Re:I'm confused by Toonol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If only 30% of the stories relate to Microsoft, Slashdot is probably under-reporting... Windows is on a far higher percentage of PCs than 30%. You should be happy the amount of Linux stories doesn't accurately reflect the installed base.

    In reality, Slashdot focuses more on Linux and less on Windows than any simple news aggregator would. They do have a bias, but it's exactly the opposite of your conspiratorial theory. So, no, nobody sensible thinks Microsoft shilling is going on here. In fact, it would require a worrisome disconnect from reality to hold that idea.

  16. Quite fair actually by femto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems quite fair to ask that the rights holder pay the cost of production if they choose to take possession the bootleg product, as they are then free to sell it for retail price. Why should the rights holder get a bunch of free product, which they would otherwise have to have paid to produce? If they rights holder doesn't want to retail the bootleg product themselves they can refuse to buy it.

    In this case the Chinese government seems to be ahead of the US in applying market principles..

    1. Re:Quite fair actually by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the problem isn't as much the IP holder not wanting to buy the counterfeit product back. For all intents and purposes, the product could be tainted in some way or carry a liability of some sort. The problem is that if it was wrong for the pirate to sell the material based on the lack of permission from the copyright holder, then it is still wrong for anyone else to do the same.

      You see, law enforcement isn't supposed to be making a profit from other people's crimes whether you agree with those crimes or not. And because the IP holder doesn't want to purchase them, doesn't mean they lose any right to them. Otherwise the cops could create a legitimate counterfeiting scheme where they find all sorts of counterfeit merchandise but never the pirates and thereby are guaranteed a profit by either selling them to the IP holder or the public at large. Market principles simply don't apply unless copyright law says something to the effect of "the creator or owner of the copyright has the exclusive control over distribution unless the cops find someone breaking the law". As far as I know, it doesn't and as far as I know, the exclusive rights are guaranteed by treaties which don't hold those provisions.

    2. Re:Quite fair actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As rights holders are quite fond of telling everyone: you own the plastic of which the DVD is made, we own (and license) the rest. Now the boot is on the other foot, and the rights holders don't like it. The Chinese government isn't selling rights owners the IP (which the holder already owns). What they are selling them is a lump of plastic. There's no profit involved. All the Chinese government is saying is "we get the free lunch, not you". Quite justified, especially since the government has incurred policing costs.

    3. Re:Quite fair actually by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Oh, Ok. I guess I thought that meant Chinese Police selling the bootleg stuff on the street.

      donate, auction, or sell

      Actually...if China reserves the right to donate the bootleg material...they would NOT be talking about donating it back to the IP holder. That's not a donation. And auction? Why would you auction bootleg material back to the IP holder...that's an auction of one.

      On second thought...I am right. This isn't just about selling it back to the IP holder.

    4. Re:Quite fair actually by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But is it right to force someone to buy something?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:Quite fair actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police in the US have the same problem. They will confiscate a printing press for money then auction it off. Who would have a legal use for a money printing press?

    6. Re:Quite fair actually by furby076 · · Score: 1

      Someone breaks into your home and steals your stuff. The cops recover the stolen goods. By your logic the cops should either sell it to you or sell it to someone else. Is that fair?

      Law enforcement gets paid by the citizens to enforce the laws - if you don't agree with the law then lobby your gov't to change the laws. Law enforcement is not, and should NEVER, be authorized to sell stolen property when it knows who to return it to. It should also never break the law and by selling pirated software they confiscated the law enforcement agency IS breaking the law.

      BTW, police gov't auctions (where they sell seized property) sells property that 1) the legitimate owner cannot be found, for stolen goods or 2) the goods sold was bought by the criminals and presumably with the money they made in their illegal ventures...like drug dealing. Those monies typically go to support the police endeavors to catch more criminals or support those hurt by the criminals. If it can be directly related to innocent victims the money may also be funneled to help them with their losses.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    7. Re:Quite fair actually by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      They're not forcing the rights holders to purchase the materials, they are offering them the right to purchase it as an alternative to destroying it - which is what happens in the US. Although they do have a third interesting option I saw from the article, give it to the Red Cross. I doubt that applies to CDs, but I can certainly see how the RC would benefit from a couple of cargo containers of counterfeit clothes.

    8. Re:Quite fair actually by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 1

      You see, law enforcement isn't supposed to be making a profit from other people's crimes whether you agree with those crimes or not.

      So who gets the money from speeding tickets?

    9. Re:Quite fair actually by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That is supposed to go to the general fund. Generally, it goes to the state first then gets passed back to the county or city in lesser amounts. But, that would be revenue and not profit.

  17. Eh? by dtmos · · Score: 1

    I was ... the first American that many Chinese seen (sic) since the Chiang Kai-shek stuff from the 50's and 60's.

    Chiang left the mainland in 1949. During the 1950s and 1960s he was President of the ROC, of course, but I wasn't aware of any significant numbers of Americans on the mainland during this period, the height of the Cold War. Did you mean "the 1940s," or is there a facet of Sino-American relations of which I am not aware?

    1. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probrably lacks knowledge in history.

  18. As the USA just ignore's WTO.. by Jack+Sombra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the USA just ignores WTO when it suits them, like in the case of Internet Gambling and Antigua, do they honestly expect a country like China to pay any attention to WTO? And god help USA if it try's to "punish" China, as China could make the dollar worth less than a Zimbabwean dollar and blast the US economy back to barter system overnight

    1. Re:As the USA just ignore's WTO.. by furby076 · · Score: 1

      As the USA just ignores WTO when it suits them, like in the case of Internet Gambling and Antigua, do they honestly expect a country like China to pay any attention to WTO? And god help USA if it try's to "punish" China, as China could make the dollar worth less than a Zimbabwean dollar and blast the US economy back to barter system overnight

      Show proof of this plan.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  19. China had more people there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when they didn't sell to the West.

    When they can't sell to the west, what do you think will happen? They'll survive as they have done.

    This failure of trade will only be a problem for China after another 50 years or so, when they've gotten addicted to this and have dropped the old ways.

    At the moment, there are still too many people who don't make anything from the West in China and they will not be affected.

  20. Voluntary? by Baki · · Score: 1

    I wonder how voluntary many countries really enter these agreements. If you do not, the US and some other western countries will view you as a rogue state and boycott you. I feel many countries including China are blackmailed into accepting these agreements.

    1. Re:Voluntary? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Just as importantly, it's not like the Chinese government and the US government plan to do much trade with each other; this is mainly about whether private citizens living in each country can engage in trade. From the citizens' point of view these treaties are decidedly non-voluntary, regardless of whether they're accepted (involuntary conditions) or declined (involuntary interference in trade).

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    2. Re:Voluntary? by xero314 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how voluntary many countries really enter these agreements.

      How much more voluntary can things be beyond saying "I will trade with you, but these are the conditions I will trade under." Would you rather a person be forced to trade with others even if the conditions are highly unfavorable to them? If you were saying that the western countries are saying "agree to our contract or we will destroy your country" then you might have a valid argument, but that is not the case you are trying to portray.

  21. China != Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think you missed out on:

    the rich guys making the money make sure the borders stay open.

    With Iraq, the rich guys wanted the war. As they say, "money talks."

    Money + Immorality = Major Problems.

  22. Copy anything attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was in Hong Kong last Chinese New Year with a friend who was shopping for a new watch. We both took photos of almost every watch between HK and Kowloon from outside each shop. On the street and inside malls. Then, in the IFC mall, a salesperson came out running and yelling at us to stop, "no photos!"

    I asked why not and she said that people copy watches and rip off the real makers all the time with look-a-likes.

    We were just shopping for a $400 watch that wasn't available back home.

    BTW, go to Hong Kong AND Macau for some fun sometime. Wonderful city and area, lots to see and do regardless of your desires. I loved the cultural sites that were fairly easy to take a train to see. Don't worry about just speaking English. It is easier to get along there with just English than in Latin America.

  23. Hilarity ensues by Voodoo+Coder · · Score: 1

    China has the USA's cajones in a vice right now. The US is stomping on about pirated copies of Caddyshack and Windows being sold throughout China, but what EXACTLY can the US do? Nadda. And China knows it. China will say whatever they want to the WTO, because they now own it. They know that if the USA holds true to the original bargain, and enforces tariffs on the goods imported from China because China is not upholding their end, the cost of goods will skyrocket and the American economy will be worse off than it already is. No one is going to do that. China is holding ALL the cards, and this decision is just another charade in this dance. As long as this IP battle goes on, the USA gets hurt. Thanks a lot, entertainment industry. And I thought the story behind Pluto Nash was bad...

  24. It's a tad more complicated by SpeedyDX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The way the U.S. Constitution is set up is quite unique with regards to international treatises and agreements. Once the U.S. enters into an international treatise, it is not only bound to act in accordance with the treatise in international relations, but the treatise also becomes a law of the land. And not only is it a law of the land, it is considered on par with other constitutional law, i.e., supreme over other laws.

    Because of this very unique structure (I am unaware of other major political players with similar constitutional provisions), the U.S. tends to have more of a vested interest in either trying to change the terms of an agreement so that it falls more in line with their own laws, or to abstain entirely from an international treatise (e.g., Kyoto).

    1. Re:It's a tad more complicated by Pope · · Score: 1

      And more importantly: Congress is still the ultimate decider on whether any treaties/agreements become the law of the land. How many treaties have Presidents signed over the years that Congress has vetoed, rendering them null and void by the letter of the law?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    2. Re:It's a tad more complicated by againjj · · Score: 1

      And more importantly: Congress is still the ultimate decider on whether any treaties/agreements become the law of the land.

      Treaties, yes, congressional-executive agreements, yes, sole-executive agreements, no. Sole-executive agreements with foreign powers do not have congressional oversight, and in fact may be unknown to people outside the presidential administration. Oh, and treaties are "the law of the land" (meaning at the same level of power as the constitution), but agreements are not.

    3. Re:It's a tad more complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's "treaty" not "treatise". A treaty is an agreement between sovereign nations. A treatise is long, detailed essay.

    4. Re:It's a tad more complicated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way the U.S. Constitution is set up is quite unique with regards to international treatises and agreements. Once the U.S. enters into an international treatise, it is not only bound to act in accordance with the treatise in international relations, but the treatise also becomes a law of the land. And not only is it a law of the land, it is considered on par with other constitutional law, i.e., supreme over other laws.

      Because of this very unique structure (I am unaware of other major political players with similar constitutional provisions), the U.S. tends to have more of a vested interest in either trying to change the terms of an agreement so that it falls more in line with their own laws, or to abstain entirely from an international treatise (e.g., Kyoto).

      All other countries I know of has the decency to change their laws so that they accomodate an international treatise before they accept it. That makes the treatise even harder to break. US is notorious for breaking it's promises, they usually blame it on that some other country broke the treatise first, or they just state that they have the biggest guns and can do whatever they want.

  25. Screw China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And screw India too. Let these countries fend for themselves. Its time the USA get some BALLS and tell these nations to hire their own, create their own products.. And a word to our CEO's and politicians in the USA - you all SUCK too. Stop giving our jobs and products to other nations who dont give two shits about the USA.

  26. Re:Want to introduce patents disease into China, h by langelgjm · · Score: 1

    Just because the wise US forefathers saw patents as a meaningful concept doesn't mean everyone across the world share the same wisdom.

    Well, China became a party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1985, so this is not exactly news. (Also, the U.S. complaint didn't have anything to do with patents)

    Though no one is going to deny the influence of the U.S. in pushing stronger IP protection throughout the world, patents by no means originated with the U.S. Furthermore, as a practical matter, since the vast majority of countries in the world are parties to the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, and TRIPS, even if they don't "share the same wisdom" they are legally obliged to act as if they do.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  27. A realistic economy by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So we would have to go back to something more balanced and actually produce goods in the US again? I fail to see a downside, considering I am old enough to remember when the bulk of the goods you could go out and buy here were produced here, and the economy was perfectly fine and the middle class was growing with actual savings and we didn't have near as much debt (personal/corporate/governmental). This is one of those things you have to have experienced, it is probably too hard to just muse on it intellectually, but yes, the US is large enough to be able to do this, to set as a primary goal a robust internal trading economy. If you look at it, it is a 50 state trading union, with an established common language and monetary unit. Now we can't support a huge bloated tick class of do nothing office wealth rearrangers hanging around million dollar offices who need bailouts when their gambling debts go bad with a domestic manufacturing economy, or some giant governmental "worker" base, but again, that isn't a downside.

    The other method, taken as a whole, this globalization that completely ignored a lot of the reality on the ground such as foreign nations ignoring IP etc, has failed and the economy is in such a mess now that all sorts of wild assed schemes are needed to "save" it. I contend it is better to let the past few decades long experiment in alleged "investment" ponzi schemes and get rich quick schemes and so on just finish failing and rebuild back to the older model that really worked, and improve on that one instead. There were flaws then of course, but we threw the baby out with the bath water by "investing" in their "make china and a few other nations and a handful of CEOs rich while the rest of everyone else went into debt" model. That one has been mostly epic fail, the unemployment numbers and balance of trade numbers and debt load and whatnot recent bad economic news prove that without a doubt.

    We traded a few years of cheap gadgets and an exploding debt crisis for more moderate and sustainable and balanced growth and security. I'd rather have had the latter. If their notion of globlization worked, we wouldn't be seeing all these western nations and companies and banks failing right now or going through various economic crises. You cannot borrow your way to wealth, eventually you have to work for it. You can't printing press up more money and call that a sound economy, that will never, ever work, money needs to be based on produced wealth, not unsustainable credit. Keynesian economics and what passes for globalization now are a *fraud* and have failed, it does no good to think rearranging them again with words that push those notions will fix the fundamental errors of that sort of economic system. It needs to be abandoned.

  28. USA is trying to pacify Iraq. by FatSean · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The USA would probably not try to pacify and effect regime change in China. They would obliterate every city and send the country back to where it was 50 years ago.

    The Navy would ass-rape China's sad showing. The Air Force would have a field day with China's airpower.

    Nukes is all that China has that can stand up.

    But yeah, IP is absurd.

    --
    Blar.
  29. Fucking Peasants by FatSean · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Fucking Peasants.

    --
    Blar.
  30. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell are you talking about?

  31. China says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IP in your coke.

  32. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    When you start talking severe economic moves, the US could always respond in kind. What happens if they declare the bonds to be worthless, as in they aren't going to pay? That negatively impacts their credit of course, but then maybe they are able to successfully spin it with their allies so that it doesn't. China is waging "economic war" against the US so they HAVE to respond in kind, etc, etc, etc. Or perhaps as you suggest there are actual war overtones and as part of that, the US freezes all China's assets, including the bonds. They find a semi-legal way to make them worthless, a way that doesn't piss off anyone else (and in fact maybe makes other bond holders happy since it doesn't devalue their bonds).

    There are many people who act like it is a case of China holding all the cards, and the US being at their mercy. Actually it's more a case of economic mutually assured destruction. While it is likely China could cause havoc to the US economy, it is a near certainty that the US response would decimate the Chinese economy. Hell it might not even be any real response. China trys to tank the US economy, the US doesn't respond, the economy tanks. Americans pull extremely far in to their shells and stop buying everything but essentials, and specifically good from China (since you know the media would have a field day with this). The Chinese economy grinds to a halt and now they have a major problem of civic unrest.

    Basically it isn't something either country stands to gain from thus it isn't likley to happen. China wants the US happy and buying their goods.

    1. Re:Also by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      At least we'd lose Walmart.

    2. Re:Also by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then where would we work once all the other jobs are outsourced to India and China? :)

  33. How do you call it a loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    if the common sense won?

    IMHO democracy and independence of countries is more natural than IP rights.

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Re:Communists don't believe in imaginary property. by hedwards · · Score: 1

    You mean, except for the part where the party doing the infringement is now China rather than a two bit pirate. It's not any different, it just happens to be a bribe. Pay up for protection, or perhaps we'll use the bootlegs to undermine your business.

  36. Re:Communists don't believe in imaginary property. by Jaeph · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's a bit more than that.

    I can make a bunch of copies to give away to people in china. A custom official can then confiscate those copies, then donate them to a charity which just gives them away anyways.

    -Jeff

    --
    Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
  37. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a world average, I think 30% is on the high side. (not including illegal copies, OEM copies running on other than the original hardware, etc.)
    Especially China makes a big dent in the average (legal) install base.

  38. China revokes statutory damages? by lpq · · Score: 1

    It sounds like they refuse to prosecute small-damage cases where no monetary gain was at issue -- they will prosecute crimes for commercial gain, but not for example, go after individual file sharers.

    Sounds like China has more common sense than our RIAA-paid legislators, but this isn't surprising given the insanity of suing users for $220K damages over ~$16 dollars or less of damage.

  39. Obligatory Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you really want to be accurate it's ä"æYåé...' or wÇ" xÄng pà jiÇ", haha