Slashdot Mirror


WTO Approves Suspension of US Copyright in Antigua

hydrofix writes "On Thursday TorrentFreak broke the story (verified by BBC) that the government of Antigua and Barbuda, a tiny island nation on the Caribbean, was planning to launch a legal 'pirate' website selling movies, music and software without paying a penny to U.S. copyright holders. Now, the World Trade Organization has given its final approval for the Antigua government to launch the website. The decision follows from long-running trade dispute between the countries, related to online gambling, which was ruled in Antigua's favor in 2005. After the United States refused to compensate, the WTO granted Antigua the right to 'suspend' U.S. copyrights for up to $21 million annually." From the article: "The Antiguan government further reiterated today that the term 'piracy' doesn’t apply in this situation, as they are fully authorized to suspend U.S. copyrights. It is a legal remedy that was approved by all WTO members, including the United States."

225 comments

  1. They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What the hell? They had an opportunity to ask for something valuable and instead asked for all the crap put out by Hollywood? Why not just ask for a few beads on a string?

    1. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by BeeRockxs · · Score: 1

      Hollywood? Note that it's about movies, music and software. Not just movies.

    2. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, well in that case this is wonderful. The American music industry produces a much better kind of excrement. (same thing for commerical software...)

    3. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can they violate GPL for American written software?

    4. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps you are completely ignorant of what is going on?

    5. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      It operates off copyright, so one would assume that they can.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    6. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For products falling fully under US copyright like VirtualBox: sure. Same for GNU projects.
      For a lot of other GPL software a large to a majority of the contributors are from Europe and retain their copyright, and those could sue.
      I guess we have a wholly new reason to be against mandatory copyright assignment...

    7. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    8. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      What the hell? They had an opportunity to ask for something valuable and instead asked for all the crap put out by Hollywood? Why not just ask for a few beads on a string?

      It's not a case of asking. They're taking what they are owed because the US is refusing to compensate them.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No one will play this game. The only people looking to violate the GPL for profit are companies that want to resell the code as their own. They will not open the door to the "I bought this in Antigua, so it's mine to distribute as I please" defense due to the ruinous affect this would have when turned back upon them.

      So, if you were worried that Windows 9 would be Gnome 3, rest assured, it won't be that good.

    10. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They had an opportunity to ask for something valuable and instead asked for all the crap put out by Hollywood?

      It is actually quite smart. Their goal is to apply pressure on American politicians to abide by trade rules. Hollywood is very politically connected. The studios are big political donors, and they already have lots of lobbyists on K Street. If Hollywood squeals, Washington listens.

    11. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trouble here is that the U.S. is refusing to compensate them for money lost on gambling, but the money is lost because Americans can't really gamble online anymore: to the extent that they are able, the U.S. government has effectively banned internet gambling. While this is an incredibly stupid bit of policy -- taking loose money from websites run by American companies you can control and tax and shunting it all to websites run by people you can't tax who don't care about U.S. law -- it's basically an internal U.S. matter.

      Of course, it's not like the trade organizations haven't been used to destroy perfectly legitimate laws before... just try getting a carcinogenic gasoline additive banned in North America these days. But that doesn't make it reasonable. It just points out how questionable the underpinnings of the entire enterprise are.

      Also, I'm a little curious whether the $21 Million will be metered according to the "iTunes price" ($1 per song, or 21 million songs) or the "Jammie Thomas price" ($2,250 per song, or 9333 songs), or some token amount lie a penny a file (2.1 billion movies, songs, and texts sold). If the Antigua government just decides to give stock away, rather than seeking full compensation, does it ever have to stop? How do you set a price on something that is "temporarily free... until the total number of temporarily free things totals $21 million"? I'm sure there's a tighter definition in the legalese somewhere, but it's not immediately clear from the articles what it is.

      Then there's the real-world political implications of poking a very large bear. The U.S. tends to be very "hands off" when it comes to helping other countries with their trade problems (cigarette smuggling into Canada comes to mind). At the same time, the RIAA and MPAA are not known for their temperance. When some "rogue hacker" in no way associated with the U.S. government or one of these groups (no, really, we swear) manages to get some version of Flame on the Antigua servers, it's going to get very messy very quickly.

      This is kind of like the judge in a libel trial saying it's okay to resolve the matter with a duel to the death. It will end badly for pretty much everyone involved.

    12. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by whitroth · · Score: 1

      I'm *so* glad I didn't read this with something in my mouth - I'd have sprayed it all over my monitor.

      That's deeply ill....

                    mark, passing it along

    13. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      They won't have to pay for it, but I don't think they just get to ignore copyright.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    14. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      IIUC, they can ignore the copyright internally in Antigua. And it's legal for them to offer it on the web, from servers located within the country. But this doesn't mean it's legal for you to download the wares (N.B.: not warez in this case) unless you are operating within Antigua.

      Suspending the copyright on US goods within Antigua doesn't permit you to import them into some place where those copyrights aren't suspended.

      OTOH, IANAL. I could well be wrong. But that's my reading of what it means.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Sadly yes, they've started providing copies of Ubuntu absolutely free.

    16. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need a new Universally Enforceable GPL. Call it the "Violate this and we'll hire someone to violate YOU" license.

      Seriously though, I read...

      From the article: "The Antiguan government further reiterated today that the term 'piracy' doesn’t apply in this situation, as they are fully authorized to suspend U.S. copyrights. It is a legal remedy that was approved by all WTO members, including the United States."

      ...and instantly thought, Wait, What the FUCK?!? all WTO members, INCLUDING THE US?!? The US approved this? Was our guy sleep-voting again? I told them they need to lay off the hard stuff. Or are they just voting without bothering to read, the way people agree to mostly unenforceable EULA's?

    17. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Doesn't copyright cover distribution rights? I would guess that downloading it would be perfectly legal in the US, but you wouldn't be able to distribute it.

      There's a quote from a lawyer on BBC's website about how it would be perfectly legal to download in the UK from an Antiguan service (as long as it's not widely advertised).

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    18. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > The trouble here is that the U.S. is refusing to compensate
      > them for money lost on gambling, but the money is lost
      > because Americans can't really gamble online anymore

      Wait, so have they _lost_ money, or are they merely no longer able to easily fleece stupid Americans for as much of _their_ money on an ongoing basis? There's a rather large difference. The $21 million figure would seem to point to the former, but your explanation the above quoted portion of your explanation would make more sense if it were the latter.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    19. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      But who would buy GPL software, when it's generally free? I don't think there's any interest in forking GPL software and reselling in Antigua, and if any big corporation (ie: MS) decides to move there and do something like that, it would hurt their image way too much.

    20. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Who indeed? Http://www.redhat.com

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    21. Re:They Cannot Get Something of any Value? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That certainly used to be the case, and the laws haven't changed. But I believe that there have been some court decisions that have found people guilty of copyright violation purely from downloading. Something about "you copied it onto your computer disk, and that was a violation of the law".

      For that matter, I believe that there were a couple of decisions a decade or so ago that said you committed a fresh violation every time you accessed it.

      "All I know is what I read in the papers." IANAL, etc.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  2. RIAA maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A limit of $21 million per year? What's that 3, 3 1/2 songs? Best get in there quick if you want to buy this year!

    1. Re:RIAA maths by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Well since the companies will charge you the same for a replacement copy as for something new, I guess the value of the copyright itself is about 0. So that's an infinite number of copies.

    2. Re:RIAA maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they sell the songs at 1 cent each its a lot more.

    3. Re:RIAA maths by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This could be potentially very exciting in terms of orphaned works and works that are in danger of vanishing. That little nation could become the centre of the world's first truly global data archive.

    4. Re:RIAA maths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if they're allowed to ignore US copyright forever, but I wouldn't build a long-term business plan based on that assumption.

    5. Re:RIAA maths by MajroMax · · Score: 1

      Speaking seriously, it's unlikely that the math here involves the same kind of statutory damages that arise from copyright violations in the US. Statutory damages are the result of the $500/share/song fees, and those are allowed specifically by law as a penalty. Since this set of copyright-suspensions is fully legal, US law would doubly-not-apply on the matter. At best, this might be calculated based on retail price.

      --
      "Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
    6. Re:RIAA maths by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      $500? You wish!

      Copyright statutory damages are in the range of $750 to $30,000 per work (not per infringement), with the lower limit reducible with great difficulty to $200, and the upper limit increasible quite easily to $150,000.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:RIAA maths by usuallylost · · Score: 1

      US courts may find infringement but this is a sovereign government. It isn't like suing a company or an individual. They can just say "oh well nice court ruling but we don't accept it". For the most part there is nothing you can do about that. In this case you can't even bring it to the WTO, which is what they'd normally do, because this is a WTO sanctioned action. The US could freeze any assets they hold in US banks. Even then they generally only prevent access to the assets of sovereign nations. It is very rare for them to actually seize those assets.

      My guess here is that this is a negotiating tactic. They have been tied up in negotiations with the US that haven't moved an inch in years. This is an attempt to force the US to either make a serious offer of restitution or allow them access. From the last article I believe it said that Antigua was losing hundreds of millions a year because of the US action. I found a listing online that said Antigua's GDP was something like 1.10 billion in 2010. So we are talking about a major chunk of their entire economy being harmed. This doesn't even come close to making up for that. The goal here is to make it so that US companies share the pain and complain to congress. My guess is if this goes live it won't just be the RIAA, MPAA etc complaining. Apple, Amazon and the other online retailers are not going to like having something like this undercutting them.

      As far as how many movies we are talking about it hard to say without being a lawyer and having access to the entire ruling. My guess is that the $21 million is either defined in some unpublished formula in the ruling or that it means profits. If it means profits Antigua could put a real hurt on the US entertainment industry. For example they could charge based on cost recover, no profits at all, and just pump out vast amounts of stuff.

    8. Re:RIAA maths by pepty · · Score: 1

      In related news, Kim DotCom's new company Mega has moved its place of business to Antigua ...

    9. Re:RIAA maths by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      It's only US copyright, and not permanently. The archive you could build on this basis would be a lot less global or robust than a licensed digitization project like Google's.

  3. How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The GPL and friends rely on copyright to function correctly. Can I get someone in Antigua to send me a copy of Linux (or whatever) unencumbered by the GPL for me to start a proprietary fork?

    1. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux does not only contain US copyrights.

    2. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure after you strip it of any code held by non Americans.

    3. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      You can already start a proprietary fork, you just have to give the open source elements away. OK, yes, you can breach this if you want, but it doesn't stop people getting the open source elements, they're still out there, so you just look like a bit of a dick instead. (Not having a go, just playing along with your proposal)

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    4. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ruling doesn't suspend everyone's obligations with regard to the copyrights involved, just Antigua's - while the copy sent to you may be unencmbered by a license, that doesn't mean you gain any rights to redistribution.

    5. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But alas, what does happen if you give an Antiguan a copy of something, then the person removes original copyright notices and replaces them with his/her own and distributes that copy to you? It's not anymore the original one, the copyright was stripped from it, you are not in the legal position to determine who the copyright really belongs to, and it could even be considered a derivative work -- does the suspension of copyright allow for a loophole that basically strips copyrights from an existing item and assigns a new one?

    6. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes legal to download in the US. It only means that the government of B&A will ignore the copyrights of the US (perhaps respect other countries?) and allow a business to sell at a huge profit....since they don't have to pay for it. As with any other country that has loose laws (like Thailand), if you bring it back to the US, it doesn't become legally owned here. In a sense, downloading from their site will be exactly the same as any other illegal bit torrent. Your ISP may know unless you proxy your connection.

    7. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Can I get someone in Antigua to send me a copy of Linux (or whatever) unencumbered by the GPL for me to start a proprietary fork?

      Unlikely. Linux has contributions from around the world, and the copyright on those certainly has not been suspended.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Linux isn't American. The WTO didn't rule you could override the copyrights of non-Americans, and at least one major copyright holder is Finnish. At least one other is Welsh.

    9. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by angelbar · · Score: 1

      The thing its that making a propietary fork does not really help you... there will be on the wild code similar to the one you modify with the same benefits to the user and with MORE coders to advance the GPL ecosystem.

      --
      -no sig today-
    10. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Seems like you've just described an easy workaround for US copyright holders - release movies and music with copyright from any other country but the US.

    11. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be so, but what if I don't want to redistribute?

      If Antigua decides to host a copy of 'Anonymous Coward's Greatest Hits', it would be perfectly legal.

      If I then tweet 'hey guys, they're giving away this great album' that's still legal (much as the *AA would like that not to be so).

      Another scenario.. Guys in suits turn up at my door and sieze my copy of 'Debbie does Dallas XXIV'. My defence? 'I got it from Antigua, so it's legal.'

    12. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Given the nature of the modern global conglomerate, this may already be the case. Once you bother to look at the situation, you may find that there are fewer American parent companies to take advantage of here.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    13. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the copyright still exists on the work, the ruling allows antigua to disregard the copyright and distribute the work. whoever recieves it cannot make more copies unless they want to be in violation of copyright law.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    14. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyrights are not a physical tag that gets stripped from an item. Copyright is a legal term, and can be suspended for any duration, and to any specific limit if lawmakers agree to it. Suspending copyright on an item has no effect on the future allowed use of that item.

    15. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      and at least one major copyright holder is Finnish.

      Not anymore. Linus became an American citizen in 2010.

    16. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the focus of a current case before the SCOTUS? A guy was buying books overseas and reselling them here. The general feeling was that SCOTUS was going to side on the 'first sale' side of the debate (ie, the reseller).

      With that being the case, I don't see how Antiqua wouldn't be able to reproduce a book, sell it, and have it be a legal copy regardless of where it was transported later.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    17. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could do that - but it would only be legally distributable in Antigua. Attempt to distribute it in the rest of the world and I think you would find yourself in legal trouble very quickly

    18. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Unless they are Antiguan...

    19. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you do. Just set up your distribution service out of Antigua.

    20. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand how copyright works even in the states. If this was true then stuff that starts open source would never end up closed source.

    21. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      It CANNOT work that way.

      If the current copyright holder gets to determine the licensing terms that sellers in Antigua get to use, then this exemption is pointless [as they would just add conditions to make it so, because they DEFINITELY don't this to happen].

      So, it is entirely up to the vendor in Antigua to define the licensing terms, or possibly the WTA if they wanted to get involved some more.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    22. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Key point is where you as receiver are not in a position to determine who the copyright belongs to. You get a work which is marked "(c) CleverAuthorFromAntigua, 2013". For all you know, that work belongs to the person it claims to belong to.

      Closer to home: imagine you go to a shop to buy a book or a CD. How do you determine who owns the copyright? You look on the marking on the box, I suppose. How do you know the shop is selling a genuine copy, and not a pirated copy? You assume it is so, because it is from a nice looking shop in a fancy mall.

      For a piece of software, say most of the packages that come with your favourite Linux distro, you will assume it can be redistributed if it contains a file that says you can. Now if you get a copy of Windows you may know that its copyrights belong to Microsoft. Or at least that's what we've always been told. But how about that copy on that brand new laptop in the shop, is the copyright paid for that? Can you tell, really? Is it because it contains some tiny sticker with some letters saying "Genuine Windows" on the bottom of the device?

      The bottom line is, you can not ascertain whether such a claim is valid. You have no choice but to take it at face value.

      And now for the interesting part: you download say a movie from a site that claims to be fully legal in your territory, and that even takes money for your downloads. This may be iTunes.com, amazon.co.uk or magnamovies.ru - they provide video and other media files for download. There is of course no way you can verify such a claim, legally speaking. In how much can you be held legally liable for copyright infringement in such as situation? And if you can be held liable - is it worth the risk using any such services?

    23. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      the copyright still exists on the work, the ruling allows antigua to disregard the copyright and distribute the work. whoever recieves it cannot make more copies unless they want to be in violation of copyright law.

      You didn't quite read what I said. If it worked like that then the work in question would have TWO copyrights on it, both equally legal -- the original one, and the new one. And obviously, copyright doesn't work if there are two legal copyrights to a work with differing terms. You see, the copyright asserted in Antigua would be just as legal because the copyright law is suspended and therefore the person with the work wouldn't have to abide by the terms like e.g. that you cannot assume ownership and rights to someone else's work. This is what I would like some legal expert to clarify: how to determine how to apply copyright to works that, in essence, are covered by two, competing copyrights.

    24. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      The fact that Antigua is not subject to copyright enforcement unfortunately won't help the US citizen taking advantage of it. The work is still protected in the US. So tracing a download will be much more difficult as there's no corresponding upload involved. If Antigua really wants to hurt Hollywood they recoup their $21M 1 cent at a time, by posting only the newest releases before they're available on DVD. Of course, US distributors might hold off on letting any copies get into Antigua's movie theaters.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    25. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Fortunately it's probably just academic either way.

      The ruling doesn't enable any old person in Antigua to ignore copyright as they wish, only the government to give permission.

      It's unlikely the government will say "Right, go fuck up the GPL", more likely they're sell "Right, setup an online movie streaming business full of the latest Hollywood Blockbusters."

      There's really no gain for Antigua in fucking the GPL, there's no real money in it for them compared to fucking over the MPAA/RIAA.

    26. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by PurplePhase · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly the deal Antigua should get into: one Antinguan entity makes one copy of just under 1 million U.S. copyrighted items (DVDs, Blurays, CDs, software, electronic books, etc.), removes the copyrights, and then can copy, sell, and distribute to the rest of the world. Suddenly the U.S. has some competition!

      8-PP

    27. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, but you can get them to sell you a license at a deep discount.

    28. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      If it does turn out that way, would someone please send them a copy of the Star Wars blu-ray set and request a "derivative" copy so we can get on with our fan edits without worrying about what Disney will try on us.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    29. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      there is no second copyright on the work. antigua is able to ignore the requirement to have permission from the US copyright holder when making and distributing copies, whoever gets those copies still must follow the laws of their country with regard to copyrights

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    30. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other countries generally have a shorter copyright duration. The population of Antigua and Barbuda is less than 70000, it's better to just ignore them and let them have their fun.

    31. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Wikipedia less than 2% of the current kernel is written by Torvalds and I'm pretty sure that he has a dual citizenship so Antigua could still not ignore his part of the kernel.

    32. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Matters of parent companies aren't really the issue; the only relevant question is where does the copyright actually reside, i.e. on which company's balance sheet is it shown -- a question which should be possible to resolve by looking at relevant SEC filings. My guess is most media companies hold their copyrights in a standard US company. Most countries (the US included) only recognize copyright of a foreign-owned work for as long as its owner's country also recognizes it. US copyright lasts longer than anyone else's.

    33. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The claim that you didn't realize that the work was copyrighted is a defense you could raise. Under US law the defense of unintentional infringement is defeated by a copyright notice, but the law does NOT say that the defense is guaranteed in the absence of a notice.

      The work is still copyrighted. If you REALLY didn't realize this and can persuade a court of this then you'd probably get off might easier, or maybe even entirely (though the US concept of "getting off" might not make you happy in light of what they consider fair damages).

      However, if you actually send the file to somebody in Antigua and somebody can show evidence to demonstrate this, then your infringement is obviously not unintentional. If you've even looked at the original product with the notice then it would be a hard defense to mount. Somebody who does work on Linux is not going to be able to persuade a court that they never realized it was copyrighted, until one day when they went to an unusual source for the code and looked for a copyright notice and didn't see one.

    34. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The claim that you didn't realize that the work was copyrighted is a defense you could raise. Under US law the defense of unintentional infringement is defeated by a copyright notice, but the law does NOT say that the defense is guaranteed in the absence of a notice.

      Then how about, as I suggested, a copyright notice from someone else on the work; someone who claims to have the copyright and gives you the right to use the work.

      This is getting quite close to the "safe haven" clause in the DMCA, where in case a site gets a claim of "that work belongs to me and is not allowed" they have to remove it, but as soon as they get a second claim "that work belongs to me and I want it published on your site" they may publish it again, and are safe from prosecution.

      When you see a copyright notice on the work, you can not normally verify it to be valid. You can have doubts, but can never be sure. Also if you think it's the correct one, you can still not be sure.

    35. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But alas, what does happen if you give an Antiguan a copy of something, then the person removes original copyright notices and replaces them with his/her own and distributes that copy to you? It's not anymore the original one, the copyright was stripped from it, you are not in the legal position to determine who the copyright really belongs to, and it could even be considered a derivative work -- does the suspension of copyright allow for a loophole that basically strips copyrights from an existing item and assigns a new one?

      Not even close. It clearly doesn't produce a derivative work, either. All this means is Antigua is allowed to sell you a movie or a song and they do not have to pay the copyright-holder of that movie or song. Presumably then, Antigua will have the best prices for music and movies around and should sell $21 million worth pretty rapidly. Once you've bought that music or song, you have the same rights regarding that media as you would if you bought it in the US.

    36. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      When you see a copyright notice on the work, you can not normally verify it to be valid. You can have doubts, but can never be sure. Also if you think it's the correct one, you can still not be sure.

      If you REALLY aren't sure then that is a valid defense in court.

      If you're just saying that you aren't sure, that isn't a valid defense in court.

      No, they can't read your mind. Yes, they can financially ruin you just the same. Remember - it is a "reasonable doubt" - not mathematical certainty. The only strong defense against copyright infringement is a license from the actual copyright holder. If you distribute something, you're expected to do reasonable due diligence to ensure you have this. The fact that you bought a deed for the Brooklyn Bridge from some guy on a street corner won't get you much sympathy with a judge if you decide to blow it up.

    37. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      When you see a copyright notice on the work, you can not normally verify it to be valid. You can have doubts, but can never be sure. Also if you think it's the correct one, you can still not be sure.

      If you REALLY aren't sure then that is a valid defense in court.

      This is actually the opposite: where you ARE sure that you DO have a correctly licensed product.

      How about you buy a CD from some shop in the local mall, or some digital media from a web site that accepts regular credit cards and paypal and whatnot, and the web site says they have the correct license for that. Then I take their word for it. Basically I am as sure as can be that the media for sale is legit.

      Now imagine you buy it from a web site that is hosted in some small country you have never heard of, let's call it Antigua. Are you reasonably expected to know whether you can import (that's what you're doing) that media over the Internet from Antigua? Or that you need to pay other license fees? The media is fully legally distributed within Antigua after all. They may not even tell you they are in Antigua, and use a .com domain.

      IANAL, and I really wouldn't know what you can and can not export when it comes to copyrighted materials. You buy a product in a country where it is legal, and it is not a typically restricted product (animal or plant parts, certain substances, weapons, antiques), and where the vendor offers it explicitly for export. I'd rely on the basics of the first sale doctrine, i.e. you buy a media item from someone who has the proper license to resell, and then you can take that with you across national borders, resell it, whatever - you just can't make copies of it as there is copyright on the item.

    38. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      This is actually the opposite: where you ARE sure that you DO have a correctly licensed product.

      How about you buy a CD from some shop in the local mall, or some digital media from a web site that accepts regular credit cards and paypal and whatnot, and the web site says they have the correct license for that. Then I take their word for it. Basically I am as sure as can be that the media for sale is legit.

      You don't need a license to BUY something. You need a license to COPY something. That is why it is called COPYright. The question was whether you could rely on removed copyright notices as a defense for copying and redistributing a copyrighted work, and my answer was that it depends, but in general it is a shaky defense and might only get you a reduced penalty. Copyright does not govern whether it is legal to buy anything.

      Now imagine you buy it from a web site that is hosted in some small country you have never heard of, let's call it Antigua. Are you reasonably expected to know whether you can import (that's what you're doing) that media over the Internet from Antigua? Or that you need to pay other license fees? The media is fully legally distributed within Antigua after all. They may not even tell you they are in Antigua, and use a .com domain.

      Copyright does not in any way regulate imports of anything. Other laws might do that, however. From what I understand US law on this matter is a bit murky, but in general if you buy something legally elsewhere it is legal to import as far as copyright status goes. Whether the US would view that sale as legal in Antigua is another matter. However, I don't believe I've seen anybody sue anybody for receiving copyrighted goods - likely because there is no end of people to sue for distributing them and that is a far easier case to win.

    39. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Copyright does not in any way regulate imports of anything. Other laws might do that, however. From what I understand US law on this matter is a bit murky, but in general if you buy something legally elsewhere it is legal to import as far as copyright status goes. Whether the US would view that sale as legal in Antigua is another matter. However, I don't believe I've seen anybody sue anybody for receiving copyrighted goods - likely because there is no end of people to sue for distributing them and that is a far easier case to win.

      Then how about people getting stopped at the border for importing fake LV bags and Rolax watches when they come back from China? This happens, and the only law that I can think of is copyright law.

    40. Re:How does this affect copyleft? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Copyright does not in any way regulate imports of anything. Other laws might do that, however. From what I understand US law on this matter is a bit murky, but in general if you buy something legally elsewhere it is legal to import as far as copyright status goes. Whether the US would view that sale as legal in Antigua is another matter. However, I don't believe I've seen anybody sue anybody for receiving copyrighted goods - likely because there is no end of people to sue for distributing them and that is a far easier case to win.

      Then how about people getting stopped at the border for importing fake LV bags and Rolax watches when they come back from China? This happens, and the only law that I can think of is copyright law.

      18 USC 2320 - nothing to do with copyright. In fact, copyright only vaguely covers trademarks in general (only to the extent that the trademark itself is creative, and only copying the trademark, not applying it to counterfeit goods).

      It is also illegal to import schedule 1 narcotics, and that also has nothing to do with copyright.

      Oh, neither does changing some bits in RAM to unlock your phone, but you wouldn't realize that from the latest headlines around here. Copyright covers COPYING.

  4. Karma is a.... by Sprouticus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what happens when you try to strong arm countries and, then, when the ruling goes against you, you ignore it.

    B&A is going to make $21 million really fast. The question is who sets the prices....

    1. Re:Karma is a.... by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Note that the summary even mentions the US, as part of the WTO, approved the ruling.

    2. Re:Karma is a.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevermind the price. What about resale?

    3. Re:Karma is a.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Note that the summary even mentions the US, as part of the WTO, approved the ruling.

      Wrong. The summary says that the US approved an agreement that allows rulings like this under certain circumstances.

      The US no more approved this ruling than the Senator from Arizona approved immigration reform -- which they just did contingent on securing the southern border. In neither case will they ever agree that the agreed-to condition has ever been satisfied.

    4. Re:Karma is a.... by loustic · · Score: 1

      How long before the USA decides to *liberate* Antigua?

    5. Re:Karma is a.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The long term harm the US will bring on Antigua will far outweigh the $21m. Expect trade sanctions, no foreign aid and anything else they can do to stick it to Antigua.

    6. Re:Karma is a.... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that no one sets prices : Antigua has to use these copyrights to get $21 millions. If they do so by selling album and DVDs for 1 cent per download, it is fair.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    7. Re:Karma is a.... by Lazere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I doubt it. This is a move fully backed by the WTO, of which the U.S. is a member. Any retaliation on the part of the U.S. for exercising the right the WTO has given them will not be looked on fondly. Odds are, if they do retaliate, they'll get an even bigger slap down.

    8. Re:Karma is a.... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Note that the summary even mentions the US, as part of the WTO, approved the ruling.

      Wrong. The summary says that the US approved an agreement that allows rulings like this under certain circumstances.

      Casual readers will easily misread the summary. I did, too. I re-read it as I couldn't believe the US would approve this exact ruling. It is just written ambiguously.

    9. Re:Karma is a.... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      WTO sanctions are toothless. New Zealand has had several judgements against Australia for it's refusal to allow New Zealand apples into the country (Australia always claimed there was a risk of Fireblight, something not seen in NZ since ever). In all cases, Australia simply ignored the ruling. There was never any penalties applied.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    10. Re:Karma is a.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odds are, if they do retaliate, they'll get an even bigger slap down.

      Ohhhh, please, pretty, pretty please?

  5. Bully tactics by sorensenbill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a US Citizen I'm glad to see them stand up to our government's bully tactics. I hope they follow through and set an example for other countries currently getting strong armed. I think it's pretty funny they knew where to hit the politicians where it hurts, a gut shot to the copyright lobby. I really hate the way this fuels international perception of Americans, our government may feel this way but I'd say it has more to do with campaign money than actually representing the collective public interest.

    1. Re:Bully tactics by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think its also a cautionary tale about these world governing bodies and making treaties. Our earliest founders warned us about getting into international entanglements. This is clear example of how these things don't always come out as planned. We might be strong arming China one week, but might have some rulings like these go against our interests another, and it makes us look like real ass hats when we try and argue these international bodies should be abide by one moment and than ignore them the next.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Bully tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I feel like crying for my country when I see us pull double standard BS like this. Eventually we'll figure out we can't be ass hats like this forever and what goes around comes around. But when will we figure this out? After its too late?

    3. Re:Bully tactics by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      I guess the conventional thinking is to just do what every other country does: advocate a double standard where we don't expect to be held accountable for breaking the agreement, but insist that other countries be held accountable for breaking theirs. It has worked pretty well for the US since WWII. I, for one, expect more integrity from a government formed by the likes of John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. It appears I'm in the minority, and realpolitik is the order of the day.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    4. Re:Bully tactics by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Not really. If it wasn't for treaties, Antigua could be doing whatever the hell it liked. No $21M limit or anything else. It could also impose a 100% tariff on imported US goods, as another example, or require people leaving Antigua to go to the US give up any dollar bills they have in their possession.

      The treaty results in the US being objectively better off than it would be otherwise. The WTO creates a framework where limits are set as far as tit-for-tat punishments go.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Bully tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      but might have some rulings like these go against our interests another, and it makes us look like real ass hats when we try and argue these international bodies should be abide by one moment and than ignore them the next

      And that's kind of the problem, the US wants to have their cake and eat it too.

      They insist on free trade, but then they want to be sure to have an advantage. They want keep their own farm subsidies, but penalize anybody else who does it. They want other countries to open up their markets to US products, but not always the reverse.

      So America has a moral objection to gambling, big deal. That doesn't mean that another country should, or that it should be their job to police America citizens.

      America has always been inconsistent in how they do things, and mostly to their own advantage.

      Want to stop international entanglements? Fine. Stop trying to export your copyright laws, stop trying to be sure your own industries have access everywhere with no reciprocation. Stop doing stupid things like tying aid to promises to not teach contraception. Stop sending Monsato seed as food aid which carries an EULA that you won't save any seeds for next year to grow another crop.

      America sticks her nose into everybody else's business, pushes for 'free' trade ... and then tries to be sure that the agreement only goes one way and that they can dictate terms to the countries they sign agreements with.

      By all means, don't get entangled -- but don't act like it isn't the US who initiated these in the first place and then refuses to play by their own rules. Just stop being a bunch of self entitled bastards who think the world owes you something.

    6. Re:Bully tactics by Shining+Celebi · · Score: 1

      I, for one, expect more integrity from a government formed by the likes of John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. It appears I'm in the minority, and realpolitik is the order of the day.

      Hahahaha!

      I don't think you know much about Adams, Washington, or Jefferson. Just like the politicians of today, they had lots of pretty speeches promoting freedom, democracy, freedom from foreign entanglements, and everything else good and great, but what they actually did was far, far from that. And man, you think bipartisanship is bad today, you should have seen it back then. Today's political campaigns look like a bunch of hippies singing Kumbaya in comparison.

    7. Re:Bully tactics by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know much about Adams, Washington, or Jefferson.

      Well, I've read a few books and I know those guys would get their hands dirty, same as always. I don't subscribe to the ancestor worship that makes the founders (small "f") of the republic out to be saints. But if you look at the results of what they did, I think the word "integrity" still fits.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    8. Re:Bully tactics by Shining+Celebi · · Score: 1

      I don't want to give them no credit, but it was certainly near-miraculous the US survived and ended up as well-off as we did in many ways in spite of them.

      Things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, imprisoning your media critics, pretty much everything involving Native Americans, and so on and so forth, had very little to do with integrity.

    9. Re:Bully tactics by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 1

      I, for one, expect more integrity from a government formed by the likes of John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. It appears I'm in the minority, and realpolitik is the order of the day.

      You mean the slave owners that thought that only white male landowners should be able to vote?

    10. Re:Bully tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a US Citizen I'm glad to see them stand up to our government's bully tactics.

      I think you missed something. This isn't so much about the government. You can see even in the summery they mention that the US government as part of the WTO approved this.

      This is about corporation's bully tactics, not so much the government except in situations where corporations control the government. Obviously the WTO side of the government is not under the thumb of the mafiaa corps.

    11. Re:Bully tactics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us translate what you just wrote into more familiar terms: I thought the police was there to help me, but then they arrested me when I stole all my neighbors' money. This is a clear example of how these things don't always come out as planned. I might be strong arming my neighbor one week, but might have some rulings like these go against my interests another, and it makes me look like a real ass hat when I argue that the police should enforce laws one moment and than ignore them the next.

      The cautionary tale is not that the US got in trouble. The cautionary tale is that if the WTO hadn't been there, the US would have gotten away with it.

    12. Re:Bully tactics by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      Yes, I mean those guys. You're judging eighteenth-century men by twenty-first century standards. I disagree with that but it's a legitimate point of view. I don't criticize Galileo because he was ignorant of (integral) calculus, or Hippocrates because he didn't practice antiseptic surgery. Please don't forget, these men grew up in a society where people defended slavery as vigorously as people defend software patents today, and where women's suffrage was 150 years away. Getting all the white male landowners an equal vote was a significant forward step at the time. Again, they were great leaders, not saints.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    13. Re:Bully tactics by WoOS · · Score: 1

      You want no international treaties and world trade organization?

      You are aware that US coyright only has world-wide consequences due to those treaties?
      So feel free to ask the US government to remove them but do not expect Antigua to cower in fear of the day the US does it.

  6. Sign me up! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    $0.01/year for a subscription to a BitTorrent tracker with seeding from Antiguan servers. Might as well make that $27m go as far as possible.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  7. Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When is the webshop launching?

  8. crunching the numbers gets an interesting result by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    21million that comes out to be ~1x a full metallica album

  9. WTO is Full of.... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So basically one business is being unfairly discriminated against by a government being protectionist. So the WTO says ok in that case you can rip off this completely separate business. WTF are they smoking?

    Btw I don't like copywright but this is just wrong

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Splab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's absolutely how it should be.

      The U.S wont respect the agreements, then Antigua doesn't have to either. Just like any other trade sanction being used around the world - you go for where it hurts to make the big guy play ball.

    2. Re:WTO is Full of.... by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The WTO is not looking at is a one business though they are looking at as economies. Its not like they have an army to go pacify a nation state that is not following the rules it agreed to abide by. This type of action is the only way they have to apply pressure. It make perfect sense to me; piss off an industry with a powerful domestic lobby and hope they lean on their government to fix the situation and yesterday.

      Personally I hope the outcome is that our government does a re-think on being part of the WTO in the first place; that would be the best outcome for us citizens. That naturally is a pipe dream. We should negotiate trade agreements individually on a nation by nation basis (there is only about 400 after all our government is already BIG enough to read everyone e-mail so that should not be an issue). As to places like Antigua doing things like this or China for that matter well we either consider infringement on what we feel is our property a serious enough matter that its an act of war or we don't. I would seriously hope the answer to that is we don't but its a democracy let the people decided not some international body.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should negotiate trade agreements individually on a nation by nation basis (there is only about 400 after all our government is already BIG enough to read everyone e-mail so that should not be an issue).

      You know what then will happen? All the other nations will form a common body for the sake of negotiations with the U.S., and the U.S. will be forced to sign the same treaty with everyone. You get the WTO again, but without the leverage of being a member.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:WTO is Full of.... by dkf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope the outcome is that our government does a re-think on being part of the WTO in the first place

      Careful for what you wish for; the outcomes might not be what you expect. For example, it would also mean that the rest of the world would feel no need at all to enforce copyrights held under US law, including on a lot of Free Software, or at least not until the negotiation of a whole new set of bipartite treaties.

      I wonder whether it would be legal now (if not necessarily moral) for an Antiguan citizen to do derivative works of software where the copyright holder is the FSF and change the license to a different one (e.g., a BSD variant)...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    5. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically one business is being unfairly discriminated against by a government being protectionist. So the WTO says ok in that case you can rip off this completely separate business. WTF are they smoking?

      Btw I don't like copywright but this is just wrong

      http://www.phim7s.net/

    6. Re:WTO is Full of.... by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's how it always works. Restricting it to the same business won't work because usually there isn't a significant "same business".

      You put a tariff on importing their televisions, so they put a tariff on importing your wheat.

      The WTO was supposed to put a stop to that, but of course the only real enforcement mechanism it has is that very thing. "Hey the rules say you can't do that. Since you won't stop we'll let the other guy do this other thing that is also supposed to be against the rules".

    7. Re:WTO is Full of.... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Well the US government discriminated against one business in favor of another. I guess they can now tax the casinos some more and use that money to compensate the copyright holders.

    8. Re:WTO is Full of.... by hduff · · Score: 1

      The WTO is not looking at is a one business though they are looking at as economies. Its not like they have an army to go pacify a nation state that is not following the rules it agreed to abide by.

      Cue US military invasion of Antigua in 3 . . . 2 . . .

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    9. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Clsid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, nobody forces you to sign those agreements. But if you want to get into the game, better play by the rules. So much for all the talk of free trade in the US.

    10. Re:WTO is Full of.... by JDG1980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So basically one business is being unfairly discriminated against by a government being protectionist. So the WTO says ok in that case you can rip off this completely separate business. WTF are they smoking?

      This is nothing new. Google "chicken tax" – back in 1963, there was a trade war between the US and various European nations over tariffs they put on imported chicken. In retaliation, the US put a 25% tariff on several unrelated goods – including, most importantly, light trucks. Even though the original issues were resolved long ago, the 25% tariff on fully-assembled light trucks remains, which means that foreign manufacturers usually either build their truck plants inside the US or import the trucks in "complete knock down" form and assemble them in the US.

      Anyway, remember that copyright is purely a legal construct – it's not part of customary international law, it's just a deal that the governments agreed to. If there were no treaties in the first place, Antigua would be perfectly within their rights to say that they would not have any copyright or patent laws at all.

    11. Re:WTO is Full of.... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Even though the original issues were resolved long ago, the 25% tariff on fully-assembled light trucks remains, which means that foreign manufacturers usually either build their truck plants inside the US or import the trucks in "complete knock down" form and assemble them in the US.

      Or import "passenger vehicles" that coincidentally look just like light trucks with some easily removable extra seats bolted on.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    12. Re:WTO is Full of.... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      So basically one business is being unfairly discriminated against by a government being protectionist. So the WTO says ok in that case you can rip off this completely separate business. WTF are they smoking?

      Welcome to the world. Tit-for-tat trade taxes have been the default norm since well, forever. The thing is, you always target the other country's biggest export. For the US, it's culture (the technical definition - books, movies, music, etc., and not whether or not the US material is "cultured"). Basically the US bullied the banks into closing down B&A's biggest export (gaming), so B&A went after US's biggest export as well. If you want to effect change, you have to make it hurt, after all.

      And $21M is but a drop - the IP industries in the US (including music, movie, video games, books, etc) make hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Hell, $21M is lower than what any industry claims they lose in "piracy" every year!

    13. Re:WTO is Full of.... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I wonder whether it would be legal now (if not necessarily moral) for an Antiguan citizen to do derivative works of software where the copyright holder is the FSF and change the license to a different one (e.g., a BSD variant)...

      Sure, but so what? It would only be "valid" in Antigua. As soon as it's 'exported' (uploaded) back to the mainland it will still be recognized as blatant copyright infringement.

    14. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard they have some oil there too, cough I mean, I think that the populous is being oppressed! We must bring them freedom & democracy and stuff!

    15. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big Hairy Ian, RIAA shill.

    16. Re:WTO is Full of.... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      However, isn't the $21M supposed to be the profit limit that Antigua can make per year from this? Presumably, Antigua could sell films/books/software for a very small price (especially as they're not going to have to re-imburse the US copyright holders) and it could cost the US a lot more than $21M in "lost" sales.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    17. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Tom · · Score: 2

      Btw I don't like copywright but this is just wrong

      Complain to the US, they broke the rules first.

      You see, this is how a legal and punishment system actually works. If I break your arm, the punishment will be a fine and/or jail time - neither of which have anything to do with broken arms. My wallet didn't do anything to you and neither did my bank account.

      Same thing on the country level. The punishment is not identical to the crime. It's been like that in civilized societies ever since we grew old enough to realize that "an eye for an eye", even though it might have been a step forward at its time, is still pretty damn stupid.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    18. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free software often has lots of copyright holders in different jurisdictions. There's probably someone in almost every country with a copyright or two in the Linux kernel, for example. And there's a fair question of the worst someone could do. I mean, losing copyright protection won't take source off of Github (or wherever).

    19. Re:WTO is Full of.... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      And either way the US customers pay more for their light trucks than they would without that tariff.

    20. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't want to honor US copyrights? OK, We will just stop importing goods from your country. The US represents 1/3 of China's entire exports but they export nothing that can not be imported from other countries. There are quite a few countries who can supply the same low labor costs. The US is Canada's largest trading partner and Canada generates more revenue when they do not need to absorb high transportation costs to the other side of the world. Piss of the US enough and things might get difficult when applying for a IMF loan without US consent. Reference: See Egypt. That would be a shame now wouldn't it. With the energy sector growth in the US it will be difficult to play who has a bigger dick with the US over trade. And don't forget the US is the worlds largest food exporter which can come in handy when negotiating trade agreements. It is any soveriegn countries duty to look out for their own national interests with everyone else coming in a distant second.

    21. Re:WTO is Full of.... by steelfood · · Score: 2

      A lot free software is written collaboratively. That means that the copyright is held not by one individual, but by multiple ones. And the thing about free software is that the individuals holding the copyright may not be in the U.S. Hence a violation of free software copyrights would be a potential violation of that other country's copyright laws.

      Yes, they can pull the pieces of code written by U.S. contributors only and redistribute that. But to be honest, I don't think that's worth the effort. There are bigger, easier, and more worthwhile fish in the sea.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    22. Re:WTO is Full of.... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      You can think of the WTO as a mediator on trade disputes.

      They have no power to stop the trade disputes. But they can determine what's "fair" and limit the effect of the dispute to just the relevant parties.

      Without the WTO, the U.S. could say, convince the Great Britian with lies to do something to Antigua. They still can strong-arm other countries, but they have less of a standing to do so, since the dispute and mediation process is out in the open.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    23. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cue US military invasion of Antigua in 3 . . . 2 . . ."

      Cue WTO running entire world boycott of American goods, all trading treaties and copyright 10 seconds later.....

    24. Re:WTO is Full of.... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter, the war would be won. GPL is meant to kill copyright. BSD fails here, it gives you a fleeting freedom that lasts only as long as no company involved cares about the next quarter.

      There are two reasons for GPL: 1. make software free as in beer(!), 2. giving everyone access to source (which you can then improve). Point 1 is contrary to what the FSF says, but you can't really talk about paid-for GPLed software with a straight face: paid support yes, paid development yes, paid code not at all.

      With no copyright, point 1 is trivially won. Point 2 would need some work: someone would need to create a decompiler. It would take a fair amount of work, but is certainly possible, a matter of compiler science: except instead of optimizing assembly code for speed, you'd optimize C (or $LANGUAGE) code for readability -- in both cases, preserving semantics. At that point, you get comment-less sources for all software in the world -- then you can bet any code worth maintaining will be further sanitized by someone. You may ask, why we don't have any decompilers that are worth shit? Because making one is sizeable investment, and at the moment you are not allowed to use the output of one for any interesting purposes.

      Your example works only for citizens of Antigua and direct distribution from them, which considering the small population of Antigua is sadly too small to matter.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    25. Re:WTO is Full of.... by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      But copyrights don't hurt anyone!

    26. Re:WTO is Full of.... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Free trade has never been a thing. Sure, companies are allowed to outsource labour and buy widgets from the cheapest manufacturer slavery can buy, but consumers aren't allowed to buy DVDs from outside their assigned region, and licensing agreements basically let the corporations screw you for as much as they can get out of you, instead of offering an equitable price to everybody.

      Put simply, free trade was always a hypocritical motto. It was "free trade for us, what we're willing to give for you".

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    27. Re:WTO is Full of.... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      There rarely is much alternative. If Japan discriminates against the US on wheat imports, what is the WTO going to do, tell the US to put a tariff on wheat from Japan? Nobody buys wheat from Japan. There are a bazillion cases where there is a huge trade imbalance when you look at only one particular product, which would mean that the WTO would have no power at all and there would end up not being any free trade.

      The WTO deals with nations, not industries. The US violated the WTO, so the WTO is going to do something that costs the US money. If the US feels bad for the poor movie studios they can:

      1. Fix their online gambling laws and get the sanction lifted OR
      2. Write a check out to Antigua every year OR
      3. Tax their domestic gambling operations and give the money to the movie studios OR
      4. Just tax the average Joe and give the money to the movie studios

      If US movie studios don't like how the US fails to protect their copyrights (ha), then they could always move to a country that doesn't get into spats with the WTO and therefore has their rights preserved.

      More generally, when you want to punish a nation you really have no choice but to punish people who had nothing to do with the crimes of that nation. A nation isn't a person - you can't lock it up in jail/etc. A nation is nothing more than a collection of people, and when you do things to that nation it is inevitable that they will affect people who live inside it.

  10. This is beautiful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now, how can I invest in Antigua? Most here try think how this can help freespeech etc. but I think the better question is how can I get richer by in this "grey area".

    I think it is time for the US to acknowledge that the era of controlled internet in terms of sharing and modern technology is over.

  11. Domain seizures ahead? by BSAtHome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets see if they use a domain registrar that has US roots/ties and then the DHS will seize the domain name of the site(s).

    1. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      I honestly believe that if that occurs the US would lose the root DNS servers for good. Which is not a horrible thing IMO.

    2. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      nah, they'll use good ol fashioned drone strikes.

    3. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, the US isn't going to be that stupid.

      Antigua is going to be hit by a Hurricane, and then another, and then another, till it's washed off the face of the Earth.

    4. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know that is tough one. Nobody can really force us to give up control of the root zones and the last time it was tried it was pretty unpopular.

      I really doubt our government would be inclined to yield control over an incident like this. For lots of technical reasons you could not very will mix root servers in your hints; if those root servers have a different idea of truth. You would get instability and chaos.

      If some international group or other country stand up its own root servers you will have chaos as well. Which DNS do you use? What domain registrations are valid where. What happens when I try to mail someone in another country does it go to the person I am expecting or someone else who happens to have the same domain on my DNS?

      We'd have to go back to bang paths.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It has already happened ,many times.
      They have even coerced other nations
      to delete DNS records for sites they dont like.

      China blocks unwanted content from their country.
      US blocks unwanted content from Everyone.

    6. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by Coisiche · · Score: 2

      The US has some Hurricanes?

    7. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that is exacly what can happen, lets say there is international treaty for new root servers and EU and China and most countries in between chooses to require ISP:s to use the international version by law, there is nothing US could do about it. Yes, it could make a split that makes majority of worlds population internet different than US internet from dns point of view. As for domain registrations, the new domains registered in US root servers would be valid only on US, and new domains on rest of the world root servers would be valid for rest of the world.

    8. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The US doesn't have to "own" the hurricane.

      They can just sit back and let nature do it's thing and then ignore Antigua afterwards.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that would hurt the US more than the "rest of the world" I've got a bridge to sell you. Mostly you'd just be extorting businesses that want to do EU businesses in to registering twice, once in each DNS root.

    10. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I don't know who it hurts more but its certain everyone would suffer. The grandparent is not considering all the possible complexities. What about digital certificates for example. Who can get a certificate for Amazon.com? The owner of it in the USA DNS zone, the owner in the EU/Global DNS zone, only someone who controls it both? What if you can't get your name in the other zone for political reasons, or because someone already has it? Are you able to get a certificate from a CA anyone actually trusts?

      Multiple DNS hierarchies would cause all manor challenges, your typical luser would never be able to overcome. It would end international online commerce at the consumer level, and complicate b2b massively.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    11. Re:Domain seizures ahead? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Easily solvable: just have every TLD be a root on its own. Distribute the list of such roots with DNS server packages.

      This conflicts with the latest ICANN's money grab by making it very hard to add new TLDs, but I'd say shutting that crap down is an upside rather than downside.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  12. Is it legal to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whilst it may be legal for them to sell $21million worth of copyright content, is it legal to import that content, be it via download or otherwise?

    This is the whole grey market import thing ...

    As to "what makes up $21million", that depends on their sticker prices, not court payments.

    They're allowed to sell $21million worth of material, so at $20/movie (for example), that's 1,000,000 movies.
    Or at $2/song, that's ~10,000,000 iTunes tracks.

    Presumably the MPAA/RIAA could garner up a few people and spend $21million "overnight", sacrificing 1 day of sales to mean that the other 364 days of the year would not be free of copyright. But that's tin foil hat stuff and requires that the long term gain be more than the short term loss and for the *AA to recognise that.

    1. Re:Is it legal to buy? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Import legality won't really be a big issue, because Antigua would be able to determine the import laws. The United States could limit exports, but the United States has already agreed to this plan on the WTO side, and the US has enough enemies that may be willing to act as intermediaries. For the paltry sum of $21 million/year, I doubt anyone will really be able to effectively stop this.

      However, note that the $21 million isn't necessarily sales, but rather copyright license fees (or at least that's what I suspect, because none of TFAs are clear on the matter). If the normal fee to the MPAA/RIAA were ten cents per item, Antigua could sell 210 million copies annually. That's a pretty reasonable amount, and does exactly what it's supposed to do: boost Antigua's economy at the United States' expense.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Is it legal to buy? by hduff · · Score: 1

      Presumably the MPAA/RIAA could garner up a few people and spend $21million "overnight", sacrificing 1 day of sales to mean that the other 364 days of the year would not be free of copyright. But that's tin foil hat stuff and requires that the long term gain be more than the short term loss and for the *AA to recognise that.

      Or the MPAA/RIAA could just make a phone call, arrange for a wire transfer and be done with it without elaborate and expensive subterfuge. In the bigger picture, $21 million is insignificant.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    3. Re:Is it legal to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about copyrights that are not licensed for monetary fee? (say GPLed software) Do you know how these interact with this sanction?

    4. Re:Is it legal to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it could be a "few years" before they might turn a profit of 21million bad boys if all they did was spend 21million on overheads such as infrastructure. More like they could instantly turn a profit of 21million IF they sold 300million in product by spending a many more hundred million on that data center the operations of all this will be required for.
        And then the ongoing running costs would mean to make 21mill profit they may need many more times the margin to succeed once all the dusts settles they could be looking at around 100mill per annum to profit 21mill...

    5. Re:Is it legal to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By stealing global market share they could pop up centres every year to shift this operation from site to site absorbing the upstart and operational costs of datacentres and balancing the books for a 21mill profit. Each newly built centre after each year can palm off this operation to the next centre to lather rinse repeat. I foresee billions can be spent and billions can be recouped just for that 21million gain each year.

    6. Re:Is it legal to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically this model runs at a hyper inflated amount to ensure the competition globally can't compete. Brilliant!

    7. Re:Is it legal to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] so at $20/movie (for example), that's 1,000,000 movies.
      Or at $2/song, that's ~10,000,000 iTunes tracks.

      Why are you going by the sales prices for the items in the western world? Or even the cost prices? If they were exempt from the import tax in the US for say codtongues and they bought containerships full of them for $10 per kg and sold them to the states for $5 per kg, wouldn't that mean that they're cheating the import tax for the tax on $5 per kg. Antigua is the one eating the loss. They're just exempt from paying the extra tax on that.

      Now in this case there was no tax to begin with. It just wasn't allowed. No sales of copies, period. $21 million worth of free or even just $0.01 movies/songs can get you quite far. :)

    8. Re:Is it legal to buy? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I don't see that it would make any difference to GPL software as Antigua wouldn't have to pay the US copyright holders, but the price is free anyway. It doesn't sound like the deal is to nullify copyright in Antigua, but to just allow them to get back the money that they've lost. Also, a lot of GPL software is multi-national, so Antigua would still have to respect the non-US copyrights.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    9. Re:Is it legal to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think that they would give up $21 million in sales in one day simply to avoid losing $21 million in sales spread out over one year, as well as spend an additional $21 million in cash? Whether it happens in one day or over a year, it's still $21 million. You're just doubling their losses.

    10. Re:Is it legal to buy? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      Not really. If Antique sells copies of the Game of Thrones season 2 for 1 penny then they could limit their losses by quite a bit.

    11. Re:Is it legal to buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have thought it would be easier to hurt DIsney et all sales by giving away 'products' ie latest movies albums Valued at 1 cent a time to the tune of $21 millon products and let the American companies run squealing to their bought and paid for government bitches.

  13. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not about money, it's about sending a message.

  14. In unrelated news by crazyjj · · Score: 1

    AG domain shut down by ICANN.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  15. Wait, What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Given that our government uses many bully tactics, how, exactly, is the US prohibiting US banks from transferring money to organizations doing something that is illegal in the US a "bullying tactic"? If the US had a hegemony on international financy, yeah, but we don't. You want to gamble online, use a canadian bank, or an antiguan bank.

    1. Re:Wait, What? by guises · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're missing the point, if gambling were illegal in the US then the Antiguan casinos wouldn't have been able to petition the WTO for remedy. A country is allowed to dictate whether an activity is legal within its borders, but it is not allowed to make it legal for its own businesses while excluding a foreign competitor.

      If I recall correctly, this was something to do with horse racing in Kentucky (or was that another case?) where the Kentucky state government was attempting to protect gambling revenue by barring online casinos. There was a bit about suspending their domain names as well, a lot of judicial overreach on that one.

    2. Re:Wait, What? by cpghost · · Score: 2

      You want to gamble online, use a canadian bank, or an antiguan bank.

      The point is, that the US has a de facto monopoly on international money transfers, since almost all sites need VISA and MasterCard as payment processors. The US has abused its power by going after e.g. Russian sites trading with European customers, by simply shutting them down at VISA and MasterCard. That's what's wrong with the system: the US has a stranglehold on the international money flow, even between countries that are not doing business with the US.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    3. Re:Wait, What? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Except gambling is illegal in the US.

      Or rather, the US is not some sort of Soviet style hegemony.

      Saying that gambling is legal in the US is much like saying it's legal in Europe or Africa. People tend to forget that the "States" part of "The United States" actually are distinct political entities.

      In some regards they are even more independent than the members of the EU (ironically enough).

      If the feds tried to impose upon the States what Bonn wants to impose upon Spain or Greece, there would be another civil war.

      That's not even getting into the whole VICE aspect of the situation.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Wait, What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You want to gamble online, use a canadian bank, or an antiguan bank.

      The point is, that the US has a de facto monopoly on international money transfers, since almost all sites need VISA and MasterCard as payment processors. The US has abused its power by going after e.g. Russian sites trading with European customers, by simply shutting them down at VISA and MasterCard. That's what's wrong with the system: the US has a stranglehold on the international money flow, even between countries that are not doing business with the US.

      Errr, the US doesn't have the stranglehold you seem to think - you can use your (European) Visa, Mastercard or Amex on European sites no problem - online gambling is perfectly legal in most of Europe, and the banks would be stupid not to let you deposit and withdraw.

      The problem is that they won't let US citizens deposit money into foreign online gambling sites, eg. those licensed in Antigua.

    5. Re:Wait, What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except gambling is illegal in the US.

      Or rather, the US is not some sort of Soviet style hegemony.

      Saying that gambling is legal in the US is much like saying it's legal in Europe or Africa.

      But the US has only one foreign policy and only one entity that can enter into foreign agreements. If Federal Law cannot prohibit gambling in the US as a whole, it shouldn't prohibit it only when services are provided by foreigners, and whining about how hard this is for the US is getting tiresome. This happens again and again - the US Federal State Department insists on treaties on matters such as collecting information on the owners of companies, or inspecting facilities that might be used to make chemical weapons, but the Senate will then not ratify those treaties because it would infringe Delaware and Wyoming's right to allow anyone with a fake name, functioning credit card and working postal address to set up as many shell companies as they want.

      Shit, the US even went to war with Iraq because of allegedly inadequate compliance with chemical weapons inspections, when such inspections would be illegal under the Fourth Amendment in the US (no warrants, and little probable cause in most cases other than unidentified intelligence sources).

    6. Re:Wait, What? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      There are only three states in which gambling is illegal, iirc. And it's clearly interstate or international commerce, so congress could step in and legalize or ban it (or particular practices, games, etc) if it wanted to. It would not cause a civil war.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:Wait, What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US doesn't want to abide by treaties with other nations, it probably shouldn't sign them.

    8. Re:Wait, What? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I don't think there would necessarily be an issue if online casinos were actually banned. It turns out that only foreign online casinos were banned - domestic companies could still run them. That seems like a VERY clear-cut WTO violation. An online-only ban is a bit more of a gray area as it obviously interferes with international trade, but sets restrictions on domestic trade as well.

    9. Re:Wait, What? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Eh?
      You are quite wrong in what you state.
      First, Bonn hasn't been the seat of German federal government for over a decade. Second, Germany imposes nothing upon Spain or Greece, they just enumerate conditions for credits way below the market price. Both Spain and Greece are free to declare bankruptcy and leave the union. They most certainly don't want that.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re:Wait, What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By this same logic, wouldn't American's find it hard to buy content from this site since the credit card companies will not want to risk being sued by Hollywood over the collection and distribution of payments going to a foreign country that is stealing from them, regardless of how legal an international organization says it is? From an internal US perspective it is still assisting in copyright infringement.

  16. $21 million annually by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    Is that calculated on the basis of MPAA dollars or some currency that is worth something? Like Australian dollars?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:$21 million annually by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Seems like the most sensible way to measure it is in terms of Antigua revenue. If they're losing $21M in revenue then they should gain $21M in revenue. So, if they sell a DVD set for $2 that counts as $2, and if they sell it for $10 it counts as $10 - what the US-based company charges for it shouldn't be relevant. Besides, it would only make sense that Antigua would price things at whatever turns out to be most profitable, and in the end the worth of something is whatever a buyer and seller agree it is. If you REALLY want to know what your house is worth, sell it - anything else is just fodder for argument.

  17. how long before other countries do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before other countries do this who have been stepped on by US interests, like US using DNS to shut down web sites in countries where they have no jurisdiction? Those countries might also argue they should be able to ignore US copyrights in retaliation.

  18. Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO, the Antiguans should seize US assets, there's a lot of hidden money, a lot of which will be from Casino operators, in Antigua. The Antiguans could have got far closer to the problem then copyright infringement.

    As it is, there aren't many US imports they could have taken in compensation.

    But they probably don't chase infringement anyway, so I don't see how this actually is anything but a Pyrrhic victory.

    1. Re:Exactly by TFAFalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But seizing money would chase away future business. This way they can get their money from people that they don't care if they offend.

    2. Re:Exactly by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except those casino operators are the very things they want to operate in their country. So seizing assets from them would likely cause more long term harm (by causing casino operators to move somewhere that doesn't have a history for seizing casino assets).

    3. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they probably don't chase infringement anyway, so I don't see how this actually is anything but a Pyrrhic victory.

      There is a huge difference between not chasing infringement and directly profiting from it.

  19. Reiteration by Kochnekov · · Score: 1

    When you want to do something again... again.

  20. dupe by Nyder · · Score: 1
    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:dupe by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2

      Not really, no. The old article was from the 24th, stating that this was probably going to happen, and the new one is from the 28th, stating that yes, this is actually going to happen as the WTO has approved it. There's a big difference between a small country saying they will take US copyrights at whim and the WTO saying they are allowed to.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
  21. good luck with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if you do buy something from them, be sure not to use it in the USA. or try to activate your software with the OEM.
    Basically you can expect the rest of the world to treat you as a copyright infringer, regardless of what the Antiquan government or the WTO says. Not worth the trouble.

    1. Re:good luck with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! the Horror! ~shudder~

    2. Re:good luck with this by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that copyright covers distribution rights, so as long as you're not distributing it in the US you should be fine.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  22. Bully tactic blowback sucks by hduff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think its also a cautionary tale about these world governing bodies and making treaties. Our earliest founders warned us about getting into international entanglements. This is clear example of how these things don't always come out as planned. We might be strong arming China one week, but might have some rulings like these go against our interests another, and it makes us look like real ass hats when we try and argue these international bodies should be abide by one moment and than ignore them the next.

    Yeah, it sucks when you must follow rules you agreed to, especially hwne you intended to use thoe rules to strong-arm others.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  23. Now introducing... by Clsid · · Score: 1

    Antigua Web Proxy

    Enjoy all the benefits of living life like a pirate in a small Caribbean island without all the tradeoffs. Use our free proxy to surf anonymously online, hide your IP address, secure your internet connection, hide your internet history, and protect your online identity.

    Go PRO! for more beneficial features, including ...

            Several IP's for multiple downloads
            Improved security and encryption
            Anonymously encrypt all traffic
            Works with all applications
            Easy to use software

  24. The USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in America, can we suspend copyright here? That would be nice.

    1. Re:The USA by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately they misheard "suspend copyright" as "suspsend common sense" and thought it was a great idea.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  25. Lets be honest by Grizzley9 · · Score: 2

    What everyones real question is, can I download Hollywood stuff legally from Antigua servers. I don't bittorrent any shows or movies but if it was cheap enough I'd do this (if it was legal).

    1. Re:Lets be honest by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      If they say it is legal to buy their stuff with a US mailing address, then who are you to doubt that?

      Or will you also not download from Amazon or iTunes for those reasons?

      After all you can also not check their copyright agreements with the various copyright holders, let alone verify who actually owns the copyright on an item, and whether the reseller actually is allowed to resell the item.

  26. US approved the suspension? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    Curiously, do we have a case of our arms fighting against our feet here? Seems if we are going to be anal about the first thing that started this whole mess, we'd also be anal about our punishment and fight it kicking and screaming.

    1. Re:US approved the suspension? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US didn't approve the ruling, it approved the WTO rules which allow suspension of copyrights as a remedy.

    2. Re:US approved the suspension? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Oh, that makes more sense, then.

  27. just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon enough Antigua will start "harbouring" and "assisting" terrorists or some equally bad folk and military pressure will be the only option; rinse and repeat

  28. Out of print by GreyWanderingRogue · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could they sell copies of "Song of the South" or other items that copyright holders in the U.S. refuse to sell?

  29. Come on Antigua by PortHaven · · Score: 2

    You have a long history of "piracy". Embrace it...

  30. What Antigua SHOULD DO by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    They are limited to $21 million dollars. So what they should do is offer EVERY song and movie for streaming. And for a pretty basic annual fee (say $100/year or less). But in order to purchase the streaming agreement, you must come to Antigua to subscribe. No online sale..

    So the idea is to increase tourism. Come to our little island, have a vacation, and get the world's cheapest streaming service. But only available for purchase IN Antigua.

    1. Re:What Antigua SHOULD DO by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      No. Never mind the streaming. Print physical copies of stuff. Then sell those with the rest of the trinkets all of those islands try to sell you.

      Wives can go to the jewelry shops and husbands can go to the Antiguan version of Virgin Megastore.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  31. Re:How long before the USA decides to __ Antigua? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I'll reply to you since you're one of the first Non-AC posters to say this.

    I agree they'll let this article sit a week so everyone can make their nice "clickbait ad revenue", then the reply/result will come which will pulverize this whole story into the ground. There is *no way* a cute little country-lette like Antigua can create themselves Napster 3.0. US is gonna pick their figurative dignity up and throw it in a dumpster.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  32. Software activation keys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume they can ignore US copyrights when selling software. But would they be allowed to sell activation keys? I seem to recall Micro$oft having problems with people managing to generate keys for some of their products.

    Would they have to include the disclaimer that these software products are unsupported? If not, could fraud charges ensue? Or, if they made up activation keys, could criminal charges then follow?

  33. Re:crunching the numbers gets an interesting resul by hydrofix · · Score: 1

    Actually, the way I understand it, Antigua is allowed to gather profits amounting to 21 million USD from selling copies of American works. They definitely won't be using RIAA's "special math", as used in U.S. anti-filesharing court cases, to calculate the profits, or they would actually need to find someone who would buy a Metallica album for 21 million (when you can get it for maybe one millionth of that price from the record shop). Instead if realized, they would be selling the content at whatever price the public is willing to pay, until they have recovered the 21 million USD (minus running costs for the operation, of course.)

  34. Easy work-around by cfulmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Affected US companies just need to create foreign subsidiaries and then assign their copyrights over to those subsidiaries. Problem solved. Heck, some of these companies probably already hold their IP offshore.

    1. Re:Easy work-around by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if they already do this for tax purposes. Arrange for the rights to some blockbuster to be owned by some Irish company or whatever, then the US studio licenses it and spends $500M producing the movie, rakes in $2B in profit, and then gets hit with the licensing fee of $5B of which they pay $2B and agree to drop the matter. Then they report to the IRS that the movie was a net loss, and do the same for anybody they promised a cut of the profits to. The Irish company shows a profit of $2B and pays taxes accordingly.

      I can't be bothered to look up the exact details but check out wikipedia and such for hollywood accounting, and shady accounting practices involving Ireland and the Netherlands. (Off topic - the name "Netherlands" always amuses me - sounds like something out of a Fantasy novel.)

  35. Their royal highnesses in Washington... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    US copyright holders should immediately sue the federal government as this is an unauthorized taking without fair compensation. The government is saying "here, Antigua. Do this instead to receive payment in our dispute.""

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Their royal highnesses in Washington... by tilante · · Score: 1

      No, the US federal government isn't saying that. The WTO is. (The summary is wrong: the US didn't approve this measure - the US approved the rules which allow this measure to be taken, but that's not the same thing.) So, US copyright holders would have to sue the WTO. The question is, where? They can't sue in the International Court of Justice (aka the World Court) - only nations have standing there. Even if they could, the ICJ has no means to enforce their decisions.

      And you know something? Antigua is a sovereign nation. They don't need the WTO's permission for this - the fact that they sought permission just shows that they're trying their best to play by the rules.

  36. Tell Dayton by rossdee · · Score: 2

    Mark Dayton (Governor of MN) and Democrats in the State House are talking about extending State Sales Tax to i8nclude Digital Downloads.
    I don't think they are going to get much revenue if people in MN just download the digital content from Antigua

  37. Re:crunching the numbers gets an interesting resul by subanark · · Score: 1

    Your right, they are going to use Hollywood math. They will never recover the operating costs of running this operation, and instead just have local businesses operate at 100% of the gross.

  38. MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama's MPAA masters won't like this a bit.

  39. Canada should have done this as well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. I wish we had some leaders that thought outside of the box like this. We could have asked for similar measures when the U.S. kept ignoring multiple WTO rulings in our favour on softwood lumber, water rights, etc.

  40. Antigua Declared Terrorist Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before the suborned running dogs of the MAFIAA in the U.S. government arrange to declare Antigua a terrorist nation, send in the Marines and install a Hollywood friendly government? Maybe Chris Dodd will take the job, himself.

  41. WTO about nation-states, not businesses by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

    So basically one business is being unfairly discriminated against by a government being protectionist. So the WTO says ok in that case you can rip off this completely separate business. WTF are they smoking?

    Like pretty much all of international law (except the fairly narrow domain of international criminal law regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity as embodied in various ad hoc war crimes tribunals and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), the entities at issue in the WTO are nation-states, not individuals or "businesses".

    So, it is not "one business is being unfairly discriminated against" and retaliation against a "completely separate business". It is one nation-state discriminating against imports from another nation-state, and the victim nation-state being allowed to retaliate against the offending nation-state.

    We don't have a world government that deals with disputes between businesses, we have treaty organizations that deal with disputes between nation-states. That's a consequence of an international regime driven first and foremost, almost without exception, by the idea that nations are completely sovereign within their jurisdiction, with international organizations governing only the relations between those nation-states.

  42. US not defending property interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have US IP, and you see internationally the US can't defend you, would you think a different country may be a better idea? And for reasons of which laws the US chooses to enforce? This isn't predictable function of law. That's bad for business.

  43. Empire State building... by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    State sponsored Theft by Exemption. Legal worldwide!
    Question: Does that make it an Empire?

  44. And how does it matter if they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's no more desirable to get "Johnny Linux" than it is to get "Marcus Microsoft Windows 7". You wouldn't be able to get much for selling a product that is just a copy of the original work from Microsoft, and the dangers if you're a business are astronomical.

    You'd have to prove each copy was made from THAT SPECIFIC COPY. And, essentially, that's not possbile.

  45. Pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The REAL Pirates of the Caribbean!

    Are they going to pirate those movies too?

  46. Simple question by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    What time's the invasion?

    And I assume - just like Grenada - more medals will again be given out than were on D-Day.

  47. Re:WTO is Full of....wisdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While you are so full of fail

  48. Re:RIAA maths == Hollywood Accounting by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Funny

    Under Hollywood Accounting rules, Antigua would need to set up a store that sells Imaginary Property (IP). Then they would need to set up several other organizations that bill the store various "fees".

    Under Hollywood Accounting rules, this is perfectly acceptable. The US should not complain.

    Until the store eventually turns a profit, that $21 Million that Antigua is owed cannot be repaid.

    I hope those "fees" won't get too high. I mean, it could take Billions and Billions of dollars in sales in order to eventually turn $21 Million in profit.

    Heck, the Star Wars movies from the 1970's still are not profitable!. So poor Antigua may never get the $21 Million that the WTO says it is owed.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  49. Only if they aren't blocked from the net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And... that is the sound of Antigua being dropped from the routing tables. Seriously, Antigua can host all of the copyrighted content it wants, but big content will make sure that no one can access it.

    1. Re:Only if they aren't blocked from the net by cpghost · · Score: 1

      But since the WTO and the US Gov't (!) accepted it, wouldn't arbitrarily blocking Antigua from the Net be illegal under a huge number of national and international statutes and subject the network providers to enormous liabilities?

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  50. The U.S. now allows dual citizenship. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    The U.S. now allows dual citizenship, a person can have two passports from two different countries.

    It is possible, and likely, that Linus is also still a citizen of Finland, which also allows dual citizenship, but I don't see that in a quick Google search. I think it is very unlikely that Linus would voluntarily, with no reason, relinquish his citizenship of Finland.

  51. Re:Voices from the Hellmouth by Jeng · · Score: 1

    Wonder if we can get them to publish "Voices from the Hellmouth?"

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/99/04/25/1438249/voices-from-the-hellmouth

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  52. How soon is Microsoft pening up an Antigua office? by number6x · · Score: 1

    How soon before MS opens an Antigua office?

    Copy Linux, rename it Windows 9, publish and copyright it, ship it back to the US.

    Profit!

  53. Define: "protectionism". by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    the U.S. government has effectively banned internet gambling...[snip]... it's basically an internal U.S. matter.

    No, if the US banned online gambling outright there would not be a problem. The problem is they allow US companies to run gambling sites but will not allow companies from other nations to compete under the same laws (such as paying tax). The other member countries are also obliged to allow US companies to offer gambling in their country under the same regulatory regime as their local companies.

    Disadvantaging overseas competition is called "protectionism", it gives domestic companies an "unfair" advantage. One of the reasons the WTO was set up was to discourage protectionism, that's why the WTO has punished the US.

    It will end badly for pretty much everyone involved.

    No, the US will simply ignore it, it's a very cheap alternative to a trade war.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  54. Can somebody decode this WTO Legalese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS285
    United States — Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services
    http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm

    Proceedings under Article 22 of the DSU (remedies)

    On 21 June 2007, Antigua and Barbuda requested authorization from the DSB, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend the application to the United States of concessions and related obligations of Antigua and Barbuda under the GATS and the TRIPS Agreement. On 23 July 2007, the United States (i) objected to the level of suspension of concessions and obligations proposed by Antigua and Barbuda and (ii) claimed that Antigua and Barbuda's proposal does not follow the principles and procedures set forth in Article 22.3 of the DSU. At its meeting on 24 July 2007, the DSB agreed that the matter had been referred to arbitration as required under Article 22.6 of the DSU. On 21 December 2007, the decision by the Arbitrator was circulated to Members. The Arbitrator determined that the annual level of nullification or impairments of benefits accruing to Antigua is US$21 million and that Antigua may request authorization from the DSB to suspend obligations under the TRIPS Agreement at a level not exceeding US$21 million annually.

    At the DSB meeting on 24 April 2012, Dominica read a statement on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda which stated that the United States was not in compliance with the ruling of the panel, the Appellate Body and the compliance panel. Antigua and Barbuda had formally notified the United States of its desire to seek recourse to the good offices of the Director-General in finding a mediated solution to this dispute. Antigua and Barbuda requested that this matter remain under the DSB's surveillance.

  55. Not really. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Can they violate GPL for American written software?

    As I understand it.

    They can sell up to a limited dollar value of COPIES of a GPL-violating work in Antigua and you can't (effectively) sue them (outside of the US) for failing to distribute the source or linking GPL and non-GPL object code. The purchasers of those copies could resell them, too - as long as they didn't do so into the US (which will still be enforcing the copyright).

    But additional copies, which were not sold through Antigua, are still unauthorized, both in the US and elsewhere, unless the terms of the GPL are met. So they can only sell a few before they hit the wall.

    So I don't see the GPL being "broken" by this.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  56. WMD by Dabido · · Score: 1

    In latest news, the USA has invaded Antigua searching for possible weapons of mass destruction!

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)