Slashdot Mirror
Antigua Looks Closer To Legal "Piracy" of US-Copyrighted Works
Mark Gibbs writes "Shiver me timbers: Antigua and Barbuda's 'WTO Remedies Implementation Committee', is said to be recommending the establishment by the Government of Antigua & Barbuda of a statutory body to own, manage and operate the ultimate platform to be created for the monetisation or other exploitation of the suspension of American intellectual property rights authorised earlier this year by the WTO ... Additionally, an announcement regarding the opening of tenders for private sector participation in the operating of the platform should be announced shortly. Arghhh ... matey!" See also this Slashdot post (from 2007) for some background.
if Google would slip them all those books.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Someone lobbied for this.
Tax havens designed to assist wealthy individual taxpayers have thrived for years, with the blessings of Congress.
Why should copyright havens be any different, as long as Congress approves?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Bomb them, cut their fiber optic cable, trade embargoes, prohibit tourism, not allow travel at all, etc.
The US will go apeshit over this, trust me.
Settlement? Not in a million years with this Weasel we have for president.
Or the US Corporate Congress.
The difficulty, of course, is that the US signed a treaty saying it would abide by this sort of ruling. So now what?
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
So does that mean The Pirate Bay could move there and become 100% legal. That would be awesome.
The Senate votes to modify or repeal it, and the President signs off. Same with any time the US does anything with a treaty.
Sounds less like 'piracy', and more like early America, where our forebears had little stake in maintaining the seemingly unjust control of foreign interests, but much interest in creating a large body of works that the public could use to generate culture in this new world.
I'm sure there were a lot of folks an ocean away decrying the 'free ride' those Americans were taking then too - but those resources had some heavy work to do, and it would rightly seem absurd at the to pay several times the cost of production for a 'licensed' book at the end of the day. What parts of culture we were able to 'steal' helped make us diverse and strong - and I don't blame any developing nation for wanting to repeat that, either officially, or unofficially like most nations.
Ryan Fenton
The U.S. voluntarily signed a treaty that is enforced by those 'foreign bankers'. The treaty involves obligations on those that signed it, some of which the U.S. is breaking by having this local law in place. The other parties to the treaty are honouring their obligations, yet the U.S. is not. Surely some punishment is in order?
There are some issues with what you suggest:
* The US itself want to use the WTO rules against other countries, so not obliging by those rules will encourage others to ignore them
* The issue was that US laws in the US were applied differently to different types of gambling, thus being discriminatory to some Antiguan businesses.
* US laws do not apply to web sites operating in other countries
* The people operating those businesses in Antigua are (surprise) likely Americans themselves.
So you're saying that democracy has the ultimate aim of taking over the entire world by force of arms? Also, that democracy really isn't everyone, it's more the creators, right?
* US laws do not apply to web sites operating in other countries
Someone should inform the MPAA of this
said to be recommending the establishment by the Government of Antigua & Barbuda of a statutory body to own, manage and operate the ultimate platform to be created for the monetisation or other exploitation of the suspension of American intellectual property rights authorised
Why does this press release read like an EULA? I mean that is a retarded amount of long words to describe a very simple idea. Why can't they just write it up as "We're bringing back fair use, bitches!"
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
So, to be clear, the United States democractically elected government passed a law, that applies only to United States citizens.
And the law says that US citizens can only use US-based casinos. Sounds like protectionism to me, which violates their WTO commitments.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
They're not being overruled. The law in the US is allowed to stand and is completely unaffected by this. Instead, because the US has broken a treaty Antigua no long must abide by US Copyrights, which are considered foreign law to Antigua. It doesn't harm democracy that another country is allowed to govern itself. Why should the US law be preferred to Antigua's?
Yes, because leaving the WTO makes sense. You can hang out with Somalia and Iran! You are why so many people consider America a dick nation. Sign up for international body, ignore its rulings, quit when it isn't just a rubber stamp setup for America.
Go read why this situation came about. Antigua has a good case.
Well, various nations have had trade wars for a long time. Country A exports something to Country B, A gets upset when B uses import bans or tariffs to prop up its domestic industry or simply keep things out, and then A retaliates by limiting imports from B or worse. Eventually the two countries learn to do without, or they resolve their differences, hopefully peacefully, sometimes violently.
What we're seeing now is a system in which trade treaties are becoming massively multilateral, treaties are tangled up together for mutual support, and international bodies are set up to administer them. It's still possible to pursue national interests over international trade, and to engage in trade wars, but it's become a great deal harder by design.
I agree that we need to push for more national sovereignty, so that trade is managed by politically accountable, democratic institutions, rather than potentially dangerous IGOs, but it's probably worth remembering that we pushed as hard for this mess as anyone, and now we're getting a taste of our just desserts.
As for this particular situation of course, it might've happened the same way regardless. Copyrights are strictly national in nature. US copyrights are only good in the US, UK copyrights only in the UK, and so forth. Most works have many separate copyrights attached to them. Treaties between various countries mandate that when a work receives a copyright in one eligible country, all the others grant copyrights for that same work too. Antigua and Barbuda only grant copyrights to US-originating works out of this sort of reciprocity, and can cease to do so as they see fit, including as part of a trade war on unrelated matters, since this might give them some leverage.
-- 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.
Of course Nobel's Peace prize is awarded to those that employ his
invention -Dynamite- to achieve peace.
So, to be clear, the United States democractically elected government passed a law, that applies only to United States citizens. A bunch of foreign bankers have decided that they don't like that law, and so they are overruling it.
I'm sure Slashdot will be thrilled with any decision that hurts intellectual property enforcement, but try to look at what's going on here. It is really, really bad for democracy when elected officials can be overruled by overseas bankers. The United States is right to refuse to comply with the ruling, and should do everything in its power to resist. Our democracy ain't exactly working great, but it's better than a bunch of unelected bureaucrats ruling by decree from overseas.
Just to be clear, the only reason American copyright law has any power at all outside of the United States is because of treaty. If you believe the US government can pass any law they want so long as it only affects its citizens, then Antigua can also pass a law that only affects its citizens that allow them to copy any media they want that originates from the US and resell it for whatever they want without compensation to the original creator. So what's the problem?
The only problem is if you think Antigua should be compelled to honor international law that honors US copyright law, but the US should not be compelled to honor international law in return.
This was a post by another Slashdotter that I saved. Didn't write down who it was though. My bad.
.. oh dear. We're sociopaths, but we're not uncivilized, are we?
Let's say you and I are sociopathic assholes, so whereas most people might have some kind of implicit social contract, and a sense of how people should act decently to one another, we're jerks and write up and agree to some formal rules. Among these rules are things like "Neither party will ever hit the other in the head with a hammer and then steal their wallet while the victim is incapacitated." Call that the WIPO rule.
We have another rule too. It's "Neither party will ever vandalize the other's car." Call that the WTO rule.
Then I go and vandalize your car, totally in violation of the rules. I don't deny it, either. Instead, I explain I had good reasons to do it. "I really wanted to vandalize your car, and it looked so vulnerable. I just couldn't help it!" but whether I had a good reason or not, you claim I broke our agreement. You might not feel all that hurt about the car, but breaking the agreement
After my amazing explanation for why I did it, you ask me: "Are you going to do it again?" and I answer "Yeah, probably. Your car still does look pretty vandalizable, and I really like vandalizing cars." You answer "What about our agreement?" and I just shrug. You ask, "Are our agreements important?" and I shrug again!!
You go see our mutual acquaintances, perhaps some people with whom I also have some agreements. They're a little concerned to hear I value our agreements so little. Will their cars be next? They think it over and say, "Yeah, Sloppy broke his agreement to not vandalize your car. You should get even."
So you do. You hit me in the head with a hammer and I wake up without a wallet. You do it openly, too. Our acquaintances nod with approval, even though you're breaking the agreement now. I ask, "How can you do that?!?"
You explain: if I think the rules are so important, and I have such a problem with being hit with hammers, THEN MAYBE I SHOULD STOP FUCKING AROUND WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S CARS.
I don't know what I'll do. I still really do like vandalizing cars. I'd like to vandalize your car again, and that other dude with whom I have a no-vandalize agreement. But I'm not sure I like this hammers development. OTOH, I don't know, maybe it's worth it. The hammers hurt and I don't like losing my wallet all the time, but the cars! Oh, the cars! That's so much fun.
The Senate votes to modify or repeal it, and the President signs off. Same with any time the US does anything with a treaty.
Well, treaties are weird under US law. It could be that, it could require the involvement of the entire Congress (especially if there is enabling legislation), or it might even be something that the President can do unilaterally. Of course, it's probably a political question, so there wouldn't be a bright line rule.
-- 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.
What makes you think US-passed laws have anything to do with Antigua and Barbuda, a foreign nation with its own laws? US laws aren't being "overruled", they simply don't apply outside the US.
There are international organisations such as the WTO and WIPO that set trade rules that both these nations have each agreed to abide by. The US is free to lodge a dispute with them, but they might not get very far considering it was the US who violated those rules in the first place.
And of course, the US has no power to "shut down" the WTO. They can continue to ignore it and keep violating WTO rules where it suits them, but then more nations will do simply the same and follow in Antigua/Barbuda's footsteps.
If the US wants others to follow the rules and respect its copyrights, it will have to follow the rules itself.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
So we aren't allowed to have any laws that might negatively impact the earnings of another nation? I'd prefer to have national sovereignty, thanks.
Greed ... like government officials and one percenters in every country. The US is pissed because the gambling is competition of lotteries.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The Senate votes to modify or repeal it, and the President signs off. Same with any time the US does anything with a treaty.
That doesn't solve anything, because even if the US withdraws from the WTO, they cannot prevent Antigua from suspending US copyright within its borders. As I point out above, the WTO is the only thing that makes US copyright law valid anywhere outside the US in the first place. Withdraw from the WTO, and who's going to enforce US copyright law outside the US? Why would any country enforce US copyright law when the US acts to ignore international law in this area.
I suspect that media creation is an area where the US has a huge trade surplus. In a world where the US ignores everyone else's intellectual property law and everyone else ignores US intellectual property law, everyone else wins and the US loses. The US needs the rest of the world to play ball far, far more than everyone else needs the US to do so. This is a fact I think most sovereignty-nuts fail to understand: the US probably exports more of its laws than it imports others. In a world where the US decided not to subject itself to any international law, its own interests would be the ones most impacted.
Exactly what Antigua is saying. There's earnings to be made by violating US copyrights.
Don't like it? National sovereignty; too bad.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
So we aren't allowed to have any laws that might negatively impact the earnings of another nation? I'd prefer to have national sovereignty, thanks.
Sure we are. There's nothing requiring us to honor our international trade agreements. We can break 'em if we like. However, that means that other countries don't have to honor their sides of the bargains either... hence the WTO suspending US copyrights for Antigua and Barbuda. We ignore our obligations and damage them, so they can ignore their obligations to us.
No loss of sovereignty, just a consequence of what essentially boils down to international breach of contract.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The US signed a law stating they will enforce US law world-wide (even when that law is self-contradictory). When someone else pulls this on the US, the neo-cons whine about a New World Order and such, but when the US crushes other independent states, it's a Good Thing (tm).
Learn to love Alaska
You are, but then so are other countries, which is what happens here. The treaties are bilateral -- lots of US companies benefit from them too in terms of intellectual property protection and low duties, etc.
Both should respect each others property and businesses and laws
Guess who sets out those principles of international respect for property, businesses etc? The same WTO that you want shut down.
The US agreed in 1995 to abide by the WTO's principles and rules. If they no longer want to, they're free to withdraw, but they can't expect other nations to respect the rules if they won't.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Not to mention, if we are going to play the "We don't have to fallow any treaties." line of thinking, then Antigua doesn't even need a WTO ruling. Our laws apply inside our borders, not in Antigua. The only reason Antigua would need a WTO ruling is if we are all going to abide by our treaties.
Are you familiar with the phrase "proportionality"?
Yep, and I think if anything the WTO has been too gentle with the US. Our violation of our agreements has cost Antiqua and Barbudos ~$1B per year, and the WTO has only authorized them to make $21M per year from ignoring their agreement to honor our copyrights.
It's not as though the US seriously harmed Antigua by banning online gambling.
You clearly didn't RTFA.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
As I figure, there are enough lobbyists that something will happen here. So who's lobbies are larger, the US gambling industry, or the US media industry? Or will they join forces rattling sabers and try force? This will turn out to be an interesting piece of politics.
Its called "Free" trade
The Slashdotter was Sloppy.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The party negotiating or signing a treaty rarely has the authority to create the domestic legal framework necessary to enforce that treaty.
Diplomats sign treaties, legislatures write them into law. This process is called ratification.
Multiple supreme court cases have further entrenched this by declaring that domestic law always trumps international obligations.
If we ignore international law to hurt the economy of others, they can (by treaty we signed), do the same in return. What's happening here is the US is requesting Antigua follow the treaty while the US does not. Yay hypocrite!
Learn to love Alaska
They are saying "repeal this law we don't like, or else we'll inflict as much damage as we possibly can on your economy". That's bad. If they want to play that game, we need to respond in kind.
The US already responded in kind. The US is blocking Antigua businesses from exporting to the US, so Antigua (by the treaty the US signed), is lawful in ignoring US law on Antigua soil. The only one trying to force anything on anyone else is the US.
Learn to love Alaska
property/not property... we don't need to go there.
Rights? Isn't this about the revocation of rights?
You could say the same thing about Antigua. They passed (or could pass, I don't know) a law that applies to buying and selling stuff in their own country that may be protected by the IP laws of a foreign country. I don't suppose their laws regarding the sale of such would apply in the US. This is why we have treaties.
Now if they felt like it, any Open Source project by US authors could be stuffed into a closed source derivative.
In general, the GPL is protect by copyright.
TFA suggests you have Windows 8 for $1 but ignores the fact there's no reason Microsoft would be bound to support any sort of sale made from that. They're not going to hand out CD Keys and their anti-piracy code can still do it's annoying thing.
But open source software, you already have all the bits. Just need to find valuable US Open Source software and resell them under a commercial license that otherwise wouldn't be available.
I'm too tired and drunk to remember or look up where I read this, but;
the US didn't recognize other country's IP until it became one of the countries that could profit from IP. IP isn't some universal law inherent to humanity, it's a social construct that's good for "advanced" countries. When the US didn't fit that category, they were happy to use Europe's inventions with no compensation.
Now, I'm not saying that IP is totally bad or useless, but there's no moral or legal reason why Antigua shouldn't go this route.
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
In 3...2....1..
Right now the members of Congress could not agree that the earth is round, the sky is blue, and the sun is the center of the solar system.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
even if the US withdraws from the WTO, they cannot prevent Antigua from suspending US copyright within its borders.
Well true, but Antigua cannot prevent the US from suspending its status as a nation with electricity, water, and buildings of any kind. It is kinda the primary hobby of the DoD after all.
If Antigua decides to simply disregard IP obligations to the USA then the Department of Commerce could very well have IANA black hole the entire country by deallocating its' IP blocks. A work around may pop up eventually but doing so would certainly make it difficult to use as a piracy haven.
Neh, violation of US IP is clearly economic terrorism. Operation Eco-Freedom, few billion dollars of taxpayer's money, problem solved!
No they're saying repeal this law that you agreed not to put into place or we'll break our part of the agreement as well...
null
I didn't know Antigua was in the US Supreme Court's jurisdiction. What a small world.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
If Antigua decides to simply disregard IP obligations to the USA then the Department of Commerce could very well have IANA black hole the entire country by deallocating its' IP blocks. A work around may pop up eventually but doing so would certainly make it difficult to use as a piracy haven.
all that would happen is the US pirates would use a proxy server, and no one else would deallocate their ip adresses
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
But their prime minister is low enough budget to have only had 3 pieces of security when I was there visiting (She and some diplomat were in a limo that parked at the beach we were visiting.)
There were three guys with SMGs on CHP-lookalike patrol bikes with chest hair showing, so I'm pretty sure they weren't wearing body armor and were mostly for mild show.
Now on the other hand they had camo vans full of straight up military personnel rolling around the island on any particular day and those guys were carrying full on automatic weapons from what I remember. Still pretty damn low budget though :)
Honestly it was a bit refreshing compared to the US. All that shit was out in the open, supposedly certain cities/areas had either corrupt police, or local gang control, but all the areas I passed through could've passed for rural America.
Of course we're allowed to. We're just not allowed to, per a totally optional treaty that we insist upon being a part of. Nobody's making us be a part of that treaty. It's a choice, on our part. We have 100% of our power, and our decision is that we will remain part of the treaty that treats Antigua as an exception to the usual copyright laws.
Then vote for someone who runs on a platform of withdrawing from the WIPO treaty. If you can't find a candidate, then run, yourself. Up to now, approximately 100% of voters have favored candidates in the pro-WIPO-treaty parties. Don't like it? Cool. BE the change that you want to see in the world.
They wouldn't have to leave the WTO, just remove yourself from the treaty then sign and ratify it again with a signing statement that negates the problem.
The problem is that the US is not government by one federal government. The states have sovereign authority in these matters and the US federal government has no power to act over top of them. Simply put, a signing statement to this effect should have been there to begin with. Someone obviously didn't understand the consequences, the WTO court doesn't understand the US political jurisdiction, so it simply needs fixed.
The US has it's hands tied in this matter. The problem is that the federal government has no authority to require individual states to allow gambling within it's border nor does it have the authority to require states to allow gambling from outside it's border to happen inside the state in violation of the state's laws.
Those limitations should have been put in a signing statement upon ratification. Evidently, no one saw this possibility and didn't do it.
The GDP of las vegas.. Is almost 100 billion a year. (http://www.mybudget360.com/gambling-economy-nevada-casinos-state-budget-revenues/ )
So yes. They could MORE THAN double their GDP by allowing americans to gamble there. Much more. Potentially several hundred % more.
And thats just one city that allows gambling. The US has a couple of those.
Antigua got the shaft. And the WTO noticed and agreed.
Gambling is a $133 billion dollar industry, according to IBIS. Most of it concentrated in North America. I wouldn't be surprised the law is causing some sort of economic effect. I could see online companies using Antigua for a tax haven if the law didn't exist. It not hard to picture.
We didn't ignore international law to hurt the economy of others.
The problem is that the US federal government does not have the authority to mandate states allow gambling inside their borders or restrict them from allowing it. The US federal government does not have the authority to allow gambling inside a state without that gambling following the state's laws to a tee. The US federal government does not have the authority to ban gambling inside a state. And this is not even bothering getting into the Indian reservations which complicate things a little more.
This was all clearly argued when the WTO was making it's decision but they couldn't comprehend it. Instead, the WTO basically remedied the situation by allowing them to recoup some monetary advantages through the unlicensed use of IP.
International law does not and can not override the laws of a sovereign nation. A nation can only be subject to international law if it is imposed on them thereby removing their sovereignty or if it willingly submits to it. A treaty is a willful submission but if the treaty is to be interpreted in this way, the US federal government had no authority to sign it without adding a signing statement to limit it's exposure.
Don't be stupid. Antigua is not a US state or territory. The anti-gambling law which sparked this row is a domestic law which displaces treaty obligations.
Reading comprehension...
Yes. And also, the US democratically elected government entered into a treaty, knowing ahead of time that its own US constitution would give the treaty's terms precedence over US code. Don't like the treaty's terms? Just say no. We keep saying yes. Think it's disproportional and unfair and a bad idea? Just say no. And yet We, the people of the United States of America through our acting government, still say yes.
What I think is really interesting, is the possibility that our acceptance of the treaty might make it so that I can lawfully acquire DRMed media from an Antiguan publisher. Its DRM would be a "technological measure that effectively limits access" (DMCA speak) but maybe not one that "..limits access to a work protected under this title" since Congress consented to the treaty that overrides US code. DMCA's legitimization and enforcement of DRM might finally be un-done. We need to get lots of legally-pirated-but-still-DRMed Antiguan copies of things into the US market, ASAP.
All these federal state divides seem to apply only to the US in case things out there are not going our way, isn't it? Why, I understand Syria did not sign CW treaty but that did not prevent us getting ready to bomb that little country, the whole cong/sen banging war drums. Now, they will all say in unison, that treaty we signed doesn't apply to us.
IANA's administration isn't limited to the USA. It handles IP assignment for all of the regional registries world wide. Granted its enforcement mechanism is limited to "we all agreed to play nice so lets do that" but if a deallocation by IANA/ARIN was picked up by enough networks it would make finding Antigua from any place in the world quite difficult especially if the networks carrying traffic [b]to[/b] Antigua drop it from their routing tables. Such a scenario is extremely unlikely though; Antigua has had this option on the table for years and haven't acted on it out of fear of reprisal.
So have your national sovereignty or your international companies making billions of dollars world wide. Part of having an international community is ceding national sovereignty for the greater good. The same way you cede personal sovereignty to the government in return for an organised society. If I was Antigua I would give all the content away for free so that they don't consume any of their quota and instead sell access to the site.
Isn't Jesus the Eternal Jew?
The states have sovereign authority in these matters and the US federal government has no power to act over top of them.
Missouri v. Holland.
Well, actually, it applies to the US in every matter the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to act in. So there are some exceptions but it is no secret considering that the tenth amendment to the US constitution specifically says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Now, if you actually think we were going to bomb Syria, I have some swamp land-- prime beach front property I could sell you. The only reason why we considered bombing Syria is because Obama open his mouth and was trying to look tough and drew a red line he never thought Syria would cross. Any other president would have shut the hell up before that was even said but once push came to shove, they would have also done something instead of sending the minions out to claim any day now, he will make a decision, he's just using his intellect to intellectualize or something, then pass it off to congress before Putin took one of Kerry's gaffs and gave him an out.
Now I will admit that there are people in congress who want us to goto war in Syria. That Loon John McCain is one of them but that should tell us something.
International law does not and can not override the laws of a sovereign nation.
Your argument is true only if all treaties are invalid. Sovereign nations get to sign treaties. And this doesn't affect sovereignty at all, at least not the US's. Can Antigua ignore US law within its borders? If no, then nobody who crosses the US is sovereign. We have the New World Order, and it is us.
Learn to love Alaska
That won't exactly fly with this. I'm not even positive that Missouri v. Holland would have ended the way it did with the court that is seated now either.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is why too. Obamacare was actually ruled part unconstitutional which is why the federal exchange is the center of problems and attention today.
So, to be clear, the United States democractically elected government passed a law, that applies only to United States citizens. A bunch of foreign bankers have decided that they don't like that law, and so they are overruling it.
The U.S. is a member of WTO (that bunch of [not just foreign] bankers) - and quite happy to wield it against other nations. Now with the boot on the other foot - not so happy. But it IS good to see that not abiding by the rules they agreed on by being a member of WTO does have consequences for the U.S. too, not just 'lesser' nations...
Well, no. I hit on why with the either willingly sign a treaty or it is imposed on them (presumable by force or the threat of force).
The issue here is trade favor and if it remains given the circumstances. If a county doesn't honor our IP laws, we can chose not to trade with them or allow them to trade with us. We might even be able to convince some other nations to join in on the fun. We certainly cannot force them to obey US law without the threat of force (which I think this government might be capable of trying)
But I believe the ruling is flawed insomuch that it doesn't take into account the political structure of the US and instead imposes the rules as if the federal government was an all encompassing concentration of power in the US that all states and citizens are subjects of. This would be the normal structure in most of the rest of the world but in the US, it is different. Some people say this is what makes the US exceptional- the people are the sovereign and the government is allowed to exist as subjects of the people. It has been hard to find that in practice lately but that was the general idea where as in other countries, the government is the sovereign and the people are subjects of the governments. This is especially the case in Europe where most people and governments are subjects of the crown. There are 12 monarchies in Europe currently (including the Vatican city) and while they do not have or exert much political power any more, the concept is still there.
Should we examine this situation with the limitations the US government has actually being recognized, I'm confident the ruling would have been different. The Treaty was designed to stop favoritism in trade and remove barriers to entry, not impose mandates the government cannot implement because something relatively new came about.
Right now the members of Congress could not agree that the earth is round, the sky is blue, and the sun is the center of the solar system.
Especially when some of them act as if the Earth were flat and is the center of the Solar System (or even the center of the Universe for hard-liners).
I guess you meant "day time sky above any clouds but within the troposphere as perceived by a fully trichromatic human". They'd argue endlessly on definitions involved in "the sky is blue", and legally formalize an appalling consensus when they eventually got bored enough to move on to other diatribes.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
"The problem is that the US federal government does not have the authority to mandate states allow gambling inside their borders or restrict them from allowing it."
Article Six does give the federal government the authority for the former with respect to transactions outside of the states borders.
They are saying "repeal this law we don't like, or else we'll inflict as much damage as we possibly can on your economy". That's bad. If they want to play that game, we need to respond in kind.
America should be free to pass laws governing its own citizens. Antigua should be free to pass laws governing its citizens. Both should respect each others property and businesses and laws.
How does the US ban on its citizens gambling in Antigua (on Antiguan web sites) respect the business of Antigua? I'd say in about the same way Antigua would allow its businisses and citizens to ignore US copyrights... [that would be their internal law - unbound by WTO, just like you have your internal anti-Antigua gambling law]
You might want to have another think on who's the responder here.
Assuming Antigua actually goes through with this, they will likely find that the lure of $21M in gross profit isn't enough to get any real businesses interested (they would no doubt not want to invest in a business that had a gross cap annual net of $10M or so).
It will probably end up being setup by some fly by night folks setting up a website in Antigua for the sole purpose to tick off the US with no intention of actually making money (or paying Antigua any local taxes on the $21M gross). I'm not sure Antigua will enjoy the likely consequences if such a fly-by-night organization was audited and the WTO allows the US to destroy what is left of their economy.
To avoid the likely backlash, the likely outcome is that they will allow some MPAA backed entity to just set up a shell company to donate the government $21+1M/year. That is peanuts to the movie industry...
> The WTO didn't invent respect.
That's a little revisionist and smacks of ignorance. Once the number of global players and markets of noticeable size started evolving, the Berne Convention was rapidly outdated. Many of the new nations had not participated (nor would they) and many were not competing in good and legal property that was covered by it. There was no need to have "respect" when all the global nations that wanted to trade with each other could sit down at a single table and rework private agreements in a reasonable amount of time. The WTO was the king of the hill for commercial collaboration projects to regulate these concerns. There was never any "respect" governing trade. There was always financial interest and now the WTO represents the sandbox.
It's a car analogy, so therefore legit.
Let me introduce you to a thing called the federal reserve.
So sovereignty is pretty much admitting that at the international level the only law that really matters is the law of the jungle.
The political structure inside the US isn't the WTO's problem. The WTO only deals with the US government. If the US federal government wasn't capable of enforcing its own adherence to the treaty it shouldn't have signed it in the first place.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
So does the rest of the world: There are stories from the '70s where US multi-nationals bribed IMF borrowers to issue no-bid contracts with severely inflated costs. I remember the '80s where the USA demanded 'enterprise sharing' (small businesses handing their IP to US multi-nationals), and the '90s where the USA demanded 'free trade' (but only on goods the USA exported or already refused to import). We all remembers the '00s where a economically sanctioned ally of the USA refused to do business in American dollars (so the USA declared justifiable regime-change and invaded).
A world where the USA doesn't have a voice in the IMF, OPEC, WTO would be a much better world.
Bullshit. It's not a free-for-all: the system has a quota so low that it's not even an effective deterrence.
This is your countries first (and only) reaction to disagreements with others.
And you're surprised the whole world thinks you're dicks?
If your only argument is treaties and laws are meaningless cause we have the biggest dick, then I cant wait untill someone bobbits you in the night and leaves you with nothing.
Not really. The supremacy clause cannot work against the constitutional powers or the 10th amendment.
It can regulate the commerce between states but cannot force a state to participate in a specific form of commerce. This was already explored when the federal government attempted to lower all the speed limits to 55 mph. It got tossed out on a court case due to the 10th amendment so they instead decided to withhold federal highway funding if they didn't lower the speed limits to 55. Then when they attempted to do the same for a motorcycle helmet law, another 10th amendment case was brought. This went threw the courts which the supreme court ruled that they couldn't remove existing moneys, only refuse to give additional moneys. After that, all the states started raising the speed limits back up and some that put helmet laws in place repealed them.
The only time article 6 will give the federal government power to intrude on a state is when the federal government already has original jurisdiction. An example of this is the murder laws. Lets take the Zimmerman case for example. Neither the original DA or the police wanted to charge Zimmerman with anything. They didn't think he could be convicted which ultimately proved to be correct. The feds got involved but couldn't bring charges on him so they pressured the state. Finally the state sent in a special prosecutor and formally charged Zimmerman with murder. He was formally acquitted (regardless of whether you agree with the situation or not). The feds couldn't prosecute him because the crime didn't happen on federal property, involved a federal employee, happen in a federal territory, or cross state lines.
Another example is the civil rights laws in which the feds attempted to look at to somehow punish Zimmerman but their hands were tied due to nothing happened that violated the letter of the laws within their jurisdiction. Did you know that federal civil rights laws do not apply to everyone or every company? Companies making less then a certain amount of money aren't subject to them. Hotels with less then something like 14 rooms aren't subject to them. There are quite a few other exceptions that do not apply. It is a good thing that states have created their own civil rights laws that mirror or compliment the federal laws in order to bridge these gaps. But it is an illustration of how the federal government is limited to original jurisdiction in which the interstate commerce clause was used to give jurisdiction in this case. It also illustrates that the supremacy clause or article 6 is limited to that fact. Both murder and civil rights laws are federal but plenty of circumstances exist where they do not apply.
It is exactly the WTO's problem. If the treaties are not interpreted to the limitations of the countries involved, they are not valid treaties. In other words, you cannot expect a government, the US or England or France or any other government, to be bound to treaties that they do not have the ability to implement. If you do, you have a treaty that doesn't function and it becomes invalid.
Perhaps invalid is not the word I'm looking to use. Maybe unenforceable Garbage is a better word.
it's so poetic in its justice. america finds that it cannot, by fiat, defy world wide laws and it doesn't suit them... so they violate the law they disagree with (SHOCK)... and so, as judgment, the plaintiff, in turn, gets to violate laws that the U.S. would very much like not to be violated... because... THESE are laws they like.
oh WTO... i'd kiss you if you weren't swimming with disease....
They are only allowed to recover a tiny fraction of the money the US is causing in damages to their economy, hardly as much as they possibly can.
Antigua's actions here are strikingly similar to the Opening of Japan.
If Japan had a treaty that said they wouldn't block trade and broke it while claiming, sorry our sovereign government isn't powerful enough to tell our states what to do snigger sorry. I'm pretty sure that's not the case though.
Fuck off. The alternative is to cede sovereignty to some International body? Yeah - no. It's against our Constitution. Our government works in our interests. When the WTO is in our interests we will back it, when it's not we won't. Simple.
As for Iran and Somalia - nice try. Good luck with your little club when one of the biggest economies in the world leaves it.
Aren't treaties the law of the land? They are equal to the Constitution, so far as coverage of the states is concerned. Functionally, they are amendments to the Constitution. Thus, they are not subject to the internal fighting you assert. They were deliberately set up that way to get around the dilemma you assert.
Learn to love Alaska
No, rocket surgeon, but US citizens to whom the law applies are.
Lol, you seem convinced that by signing a treaty we signed away our rights to legislate within our borders. We didn't, I promise you.
I can already tell you that Antigua will not win this, we won't be legalizing online gambling and they wont become a copyright free zone. It's all very silly.
Alas, Antigua is a nobody little country that we can fucking crush just like we crushed Cuba. So there goes your risible little fantasy.
Yes. You are foolish to believe otherwise. We do things in our best interest (well, besides just letting poor people from the third world stream in over our borders, but that's another discussion). But if the shit hits the fan then whoever is stronger wins. That's the US and China, pretty much at this point, with various close third placers.
Yes, to the extent they are constitutionally allowed and they have jurisdiction.
No they are not. The government was never founded in a way that would allow just the senate and the president to change the relationship the constitutions imposes on the states and federal government. That would require a constitutional amendment which deals with a whole lot more input then a majority in the senate. The 9th amendment makes this clear when it says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, all the laws and treaties made have to be within the bounds of the constitution. A treaty cannot change the constitution in any way. In the lawsuit over Obamacare which is also the law of the land, the mandate did not survive constitutional challenge on the merits of a fine. The Supreme court had to change it from a fine to a tax in order to find support for it (on a side note, that will likely be challenged too within the next year or so).
even if the US withdraws from the WTO, they cannot prevent Antigua from suspending US copyright within its borders
Really, now? Remember Grenada? Nicaragua? Salvador? Chile? Guatemala?
The US is not enforcing any laws in Antigua. The laws apply to US citizens only. Try harder.
True enough. I agree that Antigua and the US should just have a trade war.
Just saying. Trigger happy US Military just need a feeble excuse and .... Antigua suddenly finds itself under the protection of the US, laws and all.
Not if he believes in himself as the son of god as that would convert him to a christian wouldn't it?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Alas, Antigua is a nobody little country that we can fucking crush just like we crushed Cuba. So there goes your risible little fantasy.
Remind me again why you colonials had your little rebellion.
Hey, dickhead in case you havnt noticed, yout economy is well abd truely fucked
The US does not have a history of respecting the treaties it signed.
If you did that, no US patents would be valid anywhere else in the world. Monsanto, MicroSoft, Apple, and Motorola would be dead instantly. Google might stand a small chance, but you'd basically kill the complete USA economy the second this would come into effect.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
So then why does the US care if Antigua ignores US copyrights?
Learn to love Alaska
Vee Pee En
Help stamp out iliturcy.
A bunch of foreign bankers have decided that they don't like that law, and so they are overruling it.
No, they are just not following it... but why would they? It only applies to US citizens.
It's not ceding sovereignty to some international body - it's about honouring a fucking treaty that was signed. You know, like when the US and a bunch of other countries agree to not torture people, and the US would in later years pioneer "enhanced interrogation".
And it's not against the constitution. Look up the Treaty Clause. Treaties and conventions are a large part of how countries get along, which will be necessity require states to cede some kind of power. Same deal with you, as a United States citizen, have ceded certain personal rights to state and federal governments.
And good luck operating outside the club. In case you hadn't noticed, the financial clout and soft power of the US is in decline. Militarily the US is untouchable, so is that the world you want? The US institutes protectionism at home while demanding other countries open their markets, and failure to do so will result in the USS Ronald Reagan coming over to fuck their shit up?
Not exactly. He was a person interpreting Torah and with a definite Jewish origin. Not to call him a Jew means to have a rather crazy interpretation of what a Jew means.
Cuba was crushed? Did you have the courtesy to inform them of this?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
I love how you start with "to be clear" and follow that with falsehoods, lies, and out-right made up bullshit.
Let me guess, you wrote one crappy song or one crappy book, and are now butt hurt you won't see trillions of dollars a year in royalties?
The fact of the matter is the US was the first to fire and claim there is no copyright law here - so now you have to live with the fact you got your wish.
If you want them to honor US copyright, perhaps you should try actually following copyright law in the first place instead of bitching about the fact your government is the one that threw everything away at your personal expense.
Once you follow the laws you wrote forced on the rest of the world, then and only then can you complain that no one else is following the same laws you ignore.
Let me introduce you to a thing called the federal reserve.
In 2013 the US provided around 11.7% of the funding for the WTO. It's the single largest contribution, but far from a disaster if it were to be withdrawn. The UK, for example, provided over 4%, and Holland around 3%.
No, that was 20 years ago, I don't even have the language to describe what it is now. Fucked however, would be kind. Biggest economy in the world? perhaps he was referring to China? They own the US these days after all...
"Not if he believes in himself as the son of god as that would convert him to a christian wouldn't it?"
He did not. He was _voted_ son of god 300 years after his death, he was a simple prophet until that.
The republicans of those days prevented many of the opponents of that vote to reach the poll.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
Between some idiot on the Internet, and the Constitution, I'll trust the Constitution. Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land. A treaty must be approved by a super-majority of the Senate, and, as the Senate represents the states themselves, not the people in those states, is binding on the states which the Senators represent. The Founding Fathers were smarter than you. Treaties require the support of the same proportion of state representation as an Amendment. It is, functionally, an Amendment to the Constitution.
Learn to love Alaska
we won't be legalizing online gambling and they wont become a copyright free zone.
Well, that's a shame, because banning online gambling and having copyright are not things I'd expect from any free country.
Ignorance is a choice
"So we aren't allowed to have any laws that might negatively impact the earnings of another nation? "
Exactly! You got it. That's why it's called the WORLD Trade Organization.
Foreign nations cannot put taxes on US goods to protect their own or prohibit their citizens from buying US stuff.
Unfortunately this goes both ways.
Both should respect each others property
Even imaginary property?
Ignorance is a choice
"Alas, Antigua is a nobody little country that we can fucking crush just like we crushed Cuba. "
Indeed, the big 'mission accomplished' in the bay of pigs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
It's funny you never complained when the WTO was murdering, yes murdering, people in the name of Big Pharma, Micro$oft, RIAA, MPAA and Monsanto.
Now suddenly when they make a decision to put US in the line, it's time to close shop.
I'm all for closing the WTO, just find your timing hilarious. You're a true patriot in the hitlerjugend sense.
It doesn't matter that the US's internal laws trump its treaty obligations as far as the US is concerned.
As far as the rest of the world is concerned that's the US's problem and it's up to them to deal with it.
As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the US agreed to be bound by WTO agreements. It's violating those agreements and so, as a result, the financial harm that Antigua is suffering is to be compensated by allowing Antigua to violate some of the other conditions Antigua agreed to as part of the WTO.
The US can opt out of the WTO, nobody can stop them, but then Antigua doesn't need to get the WTO agreement to sell US copyrights because the WTO will no longer care about it. The US won't be in violation of WTO agreements because it's not part of the WTO treaty. Antigua won't be violating WTO agreements because the US is not part of the WTO.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
"The WTO didn't invent respect. Countries were quite capable of existing and trading and even having copyrights prior to 1995, believe it or not."
Check the term 'trade wars', they cost more than real ones.
The WTO is the UN of trading, created to prevent any such wars in the future.
Lol, you seem convinced that by signing a treaty we signed away our rights to legislate within our borders. We didn't, I promise you.
Of course you didn't. What you did sign away was the right, except in certain restricted conditions, to treat foreign companies differently to domestic ones.
You can ban gambling, you can ban alcohol, hell, you can ban guns if you want to, the rest of the world thinks you ought to.
What you can't do is say "only American companies can sell guns to Americans"
Do countries try to push the boundaries, you bet, there are and have been numerous complaints to the WTO about the way China restricts foreign access to its internal markets. But China at least has the nonce to make it a borderline difficult case to prove.
The US is engaged in blatant protectionism - and the WTO doesn't allow protectionism.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
"So then why does the US care if Antigua ignores US copyrights?"
They were allowed to sell 2,100,000,000 Hollywood movies for 1 cent on the internets.
It makes some people nervous.
Biggest economy in the world is Europe.
Obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZeOUI2zEbo
If Antigua decides to simply disregard IP obligations to the USA then
*snip*
Ok, yea, perhaps... But why do you even bring up such an impossible hypothetical topic like that?
Antigua is not doing that now, has not done so ever in the past, and has given no signs what so ever to suspect they would do so in the future.
I also can't see any reason any other country would willingly aid and abet the US (or any country for that matter) in their international crimes.
Aiding the US in such an action is equivalent to saying "We agree with and support the US position that the world must follow the US rules while the US is allowed to ignore every other countries laws, including ours."
If a person is constantly talking about how he wants to shoot someone (anyone will do, not a specific person) in cold blood the second he gets a gun - and you stupidly aid him by giving him a weapon, while knowing exactly what he intends to do with it... the likely outcome will be he will immediately shoot YOU as the nearest person.
The fact of the matter is that a whole 6 years ago the US claimed there is no such thing as international laws between the USA and Antigua, and because of that fact the US does not have to abide by any law Antigua is involved in.
The end result of that choice, is the WTO and Antigua replied "Ok, if your say so" and are now acting exactly as the US told them to.
This entire problem could have been solved six years ago if the US just admitted that yes, international laws are real and do exist.
If the US followed Antiguas international laws, then Antigua would have continued following the USs international laws - like they have always willingly done.
But instead the US spent that time stomping its feet and pouting while claiming there are no such laws, and that's why the US is the good guys because _clearly_ we can't be breaking laws that don't exist!
You certainly have no legal or moral justification or rights in expecting Antigua to abide by laws the US has claimed do not even exist for the past six years now.
What's even worse about claims such as yours are all the other horrible things you are justifying can be done to the US legally now.
China could make a statement that it is legal for them to launch nuclear weapons, but there are laws stating it is illegal for the US to launch nuclear weapons. You have said that would be acceptable, just, and right.
Then once China launches their nukes at the US, you have also said it is not just OK but expected that other countries treat the US as the only criminals for launching an illegal counter attack in response to a perfectly legal first strike, and encourage those other countries to attack the US in retaliation.
They wouldn't have to leave the WTO, just remove yourself from the treaty then sign and ratify it again with a signing statement that negates the problem.
Isn't that kind of like a christian leaving the church only to join up again right away with the caveat that he wants to opt out of the 6th, 7th and 8th commandments? I don't think it works that way. If if opting out of bits and pieces of treaties every time it suits you were as easy as that, making international treaties would be a pretty pointless exercise since everybody could just opt out at will.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Or, if you weren't told that but worked it out yourself, you thought wrong.
It was to avoid paying for a license to the patents.
That is another reason why they have so many shell companies doing stuff to get the movie out there. WB hires Wonko Sane Inc to get cameras and cameramen for their picture. Make picture. Sell movie. Edison notices and goes against WB and told "they are not using your patents, Wonko Sane Inc is." Meanwhile Wonko Sane Inc goes bankrupt, the costs of the "owed money" that Wonko Sane Inc "absconded" with is used as a taxable loss on the movie profits by WB and the CEO of Wonko Sane Inc is never seen again.
Then WB hire Willy Wonka Inc. for their next picture. The CEO is really nothing like the CEO of Wonko Sane Inc. Honest.
As you can see, you're 100% behind removal of rights temporarily for criminals when they're not you or your livelihood.
The copy rights of the USA are being removed as punishment for their criminal activities, there being no prison big enough to hold the entire US population (though you're certainly trying to make that happen)
1. They could hire IP adresses from other countries. Right now, many are not too impressed with the U.S.
2. They could use IPv6. Most pirates can set up a tunnel
3. Mail-order legally pirated stuff from Antigua. No internet needed!
But I believe the ruling is flawed insomuch that it doesn't take into account the political structure of the US and instead imposes the rules as if the federal government was an all encompassing concentration of power in the US that all states and citizens are subjects of.
If the US government can not enforce a treaty, they should not have signed it.
If international bodies started to take into account the special needs of individual countries we could throw away all treaties. There is always some argument why this one country or that one does need special treatment.
This is especially the case in Europe where most people and governments are subjects of the crown. There are 12 monarchies in Europe currently (including the Vatican city) and while they do not have or exert much political power any more, the concept is still there.
You learn some strange math over there in 'merica.
There are 12 monarchies according to you. How many countries are in Europe? (Hint: There are 28 member states of the European Union, and the EU is only part of Europe).
Also, many of the biggest countries in Europe (Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Russia) are definitely not monarchies, so the vast majority of people in Europe do not live in a monarchy.
So how do you justify your statement?
We didn't ignore international law to hurt the economy of others.
The problem is that the US federal government does not have the authority to mandate states allow gambling inside their borders or restrict them from allowing it.
That is internal politics. There is no reason for Antigua to care why the US breaks its international treaties and I don't think the US would appreciate if foreign nations started to meddle with US internal politics.
It is completely irrelevant to anyone outside the US if the federal government have authority in that state or not, the only thing that matters is that the US signed a deal that they broke. This happens quite a lot and it makes the US look really bad.
To me it seems like the US has a constitutional problem. The US government appears to sign treaties that they don't have the mandate to enforce. Perhaps they should make it clear that foreign nations should make treaties with every state individually and ignore the US government.
Not a WTO problem. If the U.S. signs a treaty, there is the expectation that they will work to ratify it internally. Guess what - most countries do not allow an ambassador or prime minister make new law just by signing international treaties. But usually, they send someone to sign, only when they expect to be able to ratify later. Sometimes that fails, and also gets testes in court - like this case.
So it is discovered that the U.S. is not following the treaty in the case of Antigua, for whatever uninteresting internal reason, and therefore Antigua is no longer bound by the same treaty when dealing with the U.S. It is that simple.
If the U.S. signed a treaty and then didn't follow through internally, it is their own problem. At least as long as they want other nations to stick to this treaty. The 'federal government' might not have power to make this a law in all states. In that case, it is their job to 'sell' the treaty they signed internally. To convince all states that this is good for them and their trade. In this they have failed - apparently - and now enjoying the first consequences.
More consequences might follow - other countries with bigger markets for american goods might set up online gambling in order to get the same break Antigua got. And then - cheaper hollywood movies, unlimited licence to make newly researched drugs, microprocessors, and so on and so forth.
So I wonder if those 21 million that Antigua is allowed to make on US IP is the "fair value" of the movies - that would be no big deal for the film industry I believe. However, if it was the actual revenue Antigua makes, and given the likely global demand for these good, would it make sense for them to get those $21 million by selling movies not for $1 but for $0.01 to get the US angry?
I can't believe that I actually remember reading these remarks the last time this came up..
Why shouldn't they? It is a logical progression and just because you do not want to gamble online does not mean that there is not a market for it. They have a right to fill that market. As for allowing the people to download, why not? It is also a logical progression into a market that for some strange reason the people that should be running it have chosen to run down. I cannot understand why more countries do not allow their people more freedom. You talk about greed but you are selective in where you see it. Things that should have quite reasonably have gone out of copyright have, through lobbies in the US government, been kept copyright and you see that as OK and see anyone that sees differently as bad... You are narrow minded. It is only through US corruption that the concept of "piracy" has been created. That corruption should end.
Yeah, I know you will start with all the claptrap about poor starving artists but they are not the ones that benefit from the twisted market that the new guilds have created. Just like the guilds of the middle ages, the concept of "intellectual property" will fail.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
It's not piracy, it's privateering when it's legal!
It seems that Antigua is now a rogue state. We really have to deal with those terrorists...
(Tries to locate Antigua on the map.)
Yes, really. Remember Vietnam? How about Afghanistan?
If the US started making preparations to move on Antigua, I guarantee that all of a sudden, there will be Chinese ships docked and around the island, or maybe Russian ships & aircraft.
I don't think the US is ready to tangle with either China or Russia. Heck, I don't think the US is even ready to take on Brazil and/or Venezuela and their allies. Even if China and Russia stayed out, I'm sure that a number of SA nations like Brazil and/or Venezuela would stand with Antigua, and probably be supplied by China/Russia.
The US attacking Antigua over something like this just cannot end well for the US no matter what. Particularly when the US military has been reduced in size so dramatically over the last 25 years while simultaneously being stretched thin to exhaustion in multiple theaters.
Plus, it seems like the US has decided of late to purge the military ranks of many experienced & competent field-grade officers for political reasons. The US military, with the exception of it's nuclear missile capability and possibly it's air force, is a paper tiger at this stage. The Canadians could probably defeat the US in the state the US military and it's leadership is in.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Arghhh ... matey!
Unless the pirate in question is dying (and trying to scrawl a message on a cave), it's just "Arr."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Are you really a fucking idiot and cannot follow what happened here? The US was given plenty of chances to show why it didn't do wrong.
I guess you meant "day time sky above any clouds but within the troposphere as perceived by a fully trichromatic human". They'd argue endlessly on definitions involved in "the sky is blue", and legally formalize an appalling consensus when they eventually got bored enough to move on to other diatribes.
Or they would just wait until it starts raining and then point out the obvious stupidity of their opponents. "Blue, they say! Now I ask you, does that sky looks blue to you? Where I come from, we call that grey! And these are the people who say they know enough to govern you!"
Not only is it faster and easier, it lets them make their opponents look foolish. Win win!
It's interesting that the WTO set the limit on how much profit they can make, not how much they can cost the US in lost sales. Antigua could set up a BitTorrent based all-you-can-download service for say $1/year, with an profit level of say 4%, and make up their $21m in profit by getting 500m subscribers.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They could even make it ad-based :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So sovereignty is pretty much admitting that at the international level the only law that really matters is the law of the jungle.
I'd say it's closer to contract law than the law of the jungle. If you don't make your car payment no one comes to kill you... they just take back your car.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Bad smell returns...
There is a subtext to this discussion, which is that there is a faction of Americans who fear treaties in general. Under the US Constitution, treaties are more or less equivalent to constitutional amendments. However, as opposed to amendments, treaties tend to sail on through the Senate. So there are more than a few folks who fear giving away our national sovereignty through the "back door" of the treaty process.
Personally, I prefer a world where every country is held accountable. With such a small population, America is not going to be on top forever - and setting up a system that protects all countries now is in our long-term best interests IMHO.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
* China signs a deal with the tiny Caribbean island of Antigua to build and run a Chinese naval base there in return for investment in the local economy.
* Antigua starts selling American manufacturing and weapons IP to Chinese firms.
If the US started making preparations to move on Antigua, I guarantee that all of a sudden, there will be Chinese ships docked and around the island, or maybe Russian ships & aircraft.
Russia and China couldn't care less about Antigua. A US invasion would simply give them diplomatic validation for them to manage their respective spheres of interest.
The US attacking Antigua over something like this just cannot end well for the US no matter what.
I'm not saying it's likely, but the US has historically invaded for precisely this sort of reasons. For example:
Maybe, but it also protects the nation states hosting the non-US-based casinos.
If a US citizen were the victim of a crime, for example getting robbed by a shady internet casino hosted overseas while that citizen was sitting in their US based living room, would it not be the responsibility of the US legal system to prosecute the perpetrator?
I can imagine a situation escalating to the point where "prosecution" involves Marines and cruise missiles.
Just like they all stood with Argentina and the Falkland islands. SA countries are too poor to do shit against first world powers.
Usually people say IANAL instead of proving it outright. The senate can not just unilaterally change the Constitution by agreeing to a treaty. That would defeat the point of the amendment process.
Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
A few decades back, when many western companies were opening trade to Cuba, the US passed a law that any Cuban who had their property seized in the revolution could sue foreign companies that operated in both Cuba and the US for those losses.
In both cases, sovereign nations that cannot directly be brought to bear can have their arms twisted indirectly via hurting the private citizens' companies, which the politicians will definitely notice and feel.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
You're free to pass all the laws you like, in the US. Just don't whine when an organization outside your borders punishes you when you break treaties you've signed.
You're free to cancel the treaty and leave the WTO as well. Just watch how your shit will get passed around faster and cheaper than Thai hooker after that.
The inter-state commerce clause was designed for this purpose. They have been abusing those powers to ban drugs, but regulating gambling crossing state lines is literally what the law is set up to do.
The problem is that the US federal government does not have the authority to mandate states allow gambling inside their borders or restrict them from allowing it. The US federal government does not have the authority to allow gambling inside a state without that gambling following the state's laws to a tee. The US federal government does not have the authority to ban gambling inside a state. And this is not even bothering getting into the Indian reservations which complicate things a little more.
Sorry to be dense, but it seems to me that this has nothing to do with this dispute. The entire issue arose because gambling is legal in some places in the US. It's just that the US only wants US companies to provide gambling services to those places, and prevent Antiguan companies for providing a competitive service. This is contrary to the WTO treaty we signed.
What does this have to do with states allowing or being forced to provide gambling services? Nothing as far as I can see. It just means that wherever in the US gambling is legal, any country should be allowed to compete to provide those gambling services.
What did I miss?
The US war of independence was fought over Corporate taxes. The big multinational corporations didn't want to pay taxes so they had a war.
The WTO doesn't care how a country fulfills its contractual obligations under treaty, only if they do. They fully expect all member nations to obey the treaty. Period. And if you don't there will be repercussions.
That was a $1B loss of gambling revenue. Most of that money was immediately exported as payouts to winners. Assuming the house was taking in 1% the actual net loss to their economy was $10M.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
The way I like to remember it is that there are some languages with no words for "yes" or "no". Instead, answers to yes-or-no questions repeat the verb in the positive or negative. (Hence "bullshit" from Mandarin bùshì meaning "is not", "fault", or "blame".) I imagine that the West Country-tinged pirate dialect has gone halfway to this, keeping "nay" for no but letting "are" substitute for "yes". "Are they?" "Arr."
Because people with less to lose than to gain wanted to throw off the yoke of their own oppressive government, and create from scratch a more perfect union. It's in the Declaration of Independence for a more thorough refresher.
You seem to think this is a David vs goliath scenario with obvious parallels. Given military funding, it is so much more unbalanced than the revolution was, so crushing is entirely possible.
Yet the other nations in the world would really freak out if we fought Antigua over $21 million that we could have prevented, so there is no gain in starting something. Antigua would have to start it, and they won't. So your reference is completely nonsensical.
They could set up the ultimate Napster. Download anything you want, any time you want, at a low monthly rate. And if done over an encrypted channel you could even sell your service to Americans. You would be directly competing against American Corporations (people), selling their own goods to their own customers, and keeping all the money.
Yes. Allowing sovereign nations sovereignty is annoying and inconvenient.
Learn to love Alaska
The Amendment process is for the states to change their agreement with the federal government. A treaty is an Amendment process to change other sovereign nation's agreement with the federal government. Both require the same number of states to agree to the change, so they look very similar.
Note the wording of the Constitution, a treaty is neither above nor below the Constitution. It is equally "The Law of the Land".
Learn to love Alaska
No, it wouldn't be even close to that. That is probaly why you think it is so absurd -you are confused.
If you must keep a christian comparison, it is like a christian leaving a church where the preacher claims watching all TV is a sin and then joining the christisn church next door who claims only watching sin on tv can be a sin.
You see, the treaty does not say gambling is legal or anything of the sort. Even the WTO agrees that the US never intended to allow gambling as part of the treaty. You see, the problem comes from an interpretation that recreational services which would normally be considered tourism recruitment and cruise lines and the likes include online gambling despite the fact that the treaty language predated online gambling by 4 years in yhr modt liberal construct of online gambling and by 10 or more years in the most conservative construct.
But to be clear, the us never signed a treaty that said you must allow online ganbling. It signed a treaty that has later been interpreted to allow something that didn't exist when the treaty was created.
Guilds of the middle ages didn't fail, they got better. Now they have government backed enforcement of there licensing requirements.
American education, you can't beat it. Bet the guy never even heard of the Bay of Pigs, or perhaps thinks it's the one where Tom Hanks lands with the marines and saves the day.
The greed and the concept of copyright piracy goes back to the beginning of copyright. When the first copyright law was written the publishers were pushing for it to be forever and even then claimed it was for the artists. Ever since that original 14+14 year term has been lengthened a bit at a time and the stuff that can be copyrighted has been extended until now when it is close to unlimited.
This has happened in multiple countries often with the countries pointing at each other and claiming they have to keep up with the other country and the elected legislatures have been the worse at lengthening it. (The House of Lords put the brakes on extensions a few times including insisting on the original 14+14 term and stating the reason for copyright was to advance learning rather then make publishers rich)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I don't think you understand how Congress works.
The Republicans would scream that if Obama says the sky is blue, then it must be red. The Democrats will say they disagree, but in the interests of compromise, they'll accept green. The Republicans will insist on red or even infrared, and eventually the Democrats will agree to orange. The Republicans will then complain that the Democrats aren't interested in compromise.
The US government is on a moral crusade to protect its citizens from hurting themselves by gambling. Same reason prostitution and drugs are banned, as well as soft drinks in New York. It's called a nanny state. Apparently if you gamble it kills your soul and causes god to hate you, and the government can't let that happen even though it can't prove that either god or souls exist, so we just have to deal with it.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Who in congress believes that? Names please.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
The Senate votes to modify or repeal it, and the President signs off. Same with any time the US does anything with a treaty.
Difficulty: Being a part of the WTO has, on balance, been extremely beneficial to the US, even accounting for this ruling. Seriously - the US has been a party to more winning cases in front of the WTO than any other country, by far. Should we just poop all over every other industry in order to maintain some sort of neo-Puritan approach to gambling?
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
a CIA sponsored coup? Or perhaps the US will find some "Weapons of Mass Destruction" there? Or perhaps trumped up charges of "human rights violations"?
Of course, what will make up the $21 million won't be goods sold at anything like US prices. For example, that $9.99 album you just bought on iTunes? Maybe it will be $0.99. Or less.
On the other hand, since there's nothing in it for Antuqua (beyond the initial $21 million), I don't see how they will care about selling intellectual property at cheap prices. I know pirates love the idea of Antigua selling giving stuff away or selling it for a penny, but what's the incentive (other than spite) for Antigua to sell all this stuff for cheap? It would still cost a fortune to setup the store for the stuff to get sold in the first place.
Actually, in military terms I'm pretty sure China could overpower the US. Their military is much larger, has virtually unlimited* funds at their disposal, but the only reason they aren't recognised as the superpower that they are is that they're actually rather passive (don't really leave their soil) and won't release info on their military complex.
*for certain values of unlimited
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
What you can't do is say "only American companies can sell guns to Americans"
Well, actually, that has sorta happened. Not necissarily for "sporting" rifles and such, but for the Evil Black Rifles there are lists of parts and pieces that are imported that you can only have a certain number of. It has spawned quite a bit of cottage industry....
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Good point. Actually, I'll bet that's where the $21M figure came from; they figure they lost that much, so WTO has authorized them to earn that much by exploiting US copyrights. Seems fair.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
They wouldn't have to leave the WTO, just remove yourself from the treaty then sign and ratify it again with a signing statement that negates the problem.
Except that the US would have to restart the very slow and exhaustive application process from scratch...
All open conflicts would have to be resolved, and basically any current member can block, or at least delay for a very long time.
In other words Antigua (or one of the many other countries the US has pissed off) could keep the US out indefinitely :-)
Just what we need is more people stealing my hard work that I put $$$, sweat, and more time than you can imagine to have
a bunch of scum steal it!
Thing that this is good? Just wait until the lose of revenue hits you in the pocket, your taxes will go up, your company will
pay more in the long run, and you won't get that nice raise, but a piece of paper printed on pink paper.
> The difficulty, of course, is that the US signed a treaty saying it would abide by this sort of ruling. So now what?
So what. This should be seen as an affront to national soverienty by pretty much every body rather than the anti-USA hate-gasm it's turned into.
If the shoe were on the other foot, everyone would be defending the country that dared to have it's own independent law.
Blatant hypocrisy all around.
Remember, this is the precedent you begged for.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It's a bit strong to say he had a definite Jewish origin when his actual existence isn't certain. I suppose you could argue for a fictional person belonging to a certain group of people, but it would be a bit silly to do that.
In most places where gambling is legal in the US, it is only legal with severe (usually localized) restrictions and an extreme amount of government oversight.
I don't think Antigua ever offered to compete on a genuinely level playing field with anyone. So trying to throw that idea out is pretty assinine.
It just demonstrates how clueless most of the anti-USA blogosphere is when it comes to this particular subject.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If they'd meant tourist advertising, they could have said tourist advertising. If they want to say things that can be interpreted in any way one wants, then they need to accept that others may have different interpretations.
How would they feel if some other country decided that selling religious books was against social policy? And wrote a law that also forbid selling DVDs, CDs, and MP3s, etc. that might contain religious themes? (Not against providing them, O no, just against selling them.) Doing it for entertainment is allowed, but not as a profitable activity. I could come up with an interpretation of that treaty that would easily justify such a law.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You are GROSSLY oversimplifying the actual event. At the time of the US revolution in 1776, about 1/3 of the population wanted independence (more than joinder with Britain), 1/3 were supportive of Britain, and 1/3 just wanted eveyone to shut up and leave them alone. And we would have lost quickly and thoroughly if we hadn't had significant aid from France (much of which was in the European theater, but not all, by any means).
The GP who said it was about corporate profits was closer to being correct than are the high school history books. He should have said company profits, as corporations weren't anywhere near as dominant then, and much of the support came from relatively smaller companies. Especially smugglers. (Why, I'm not sure. Maybe they hadn't realized that you make more money outside the law, or maybe they wanted to reduce their danger. The reason probably actually varied.)
P.S.: It's worth remembering that the most successful pirates of the era, and probably any era, depend for their success on close contacts with the "legitimate" financial companies.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
IIRC, the agreement only allows them to sell the works within Antigua. So it would be hard for Antigua to get much profit. OTOH, I don't know of anything forbidding them from allowing resale...so there may be a way.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Are you familiar with the term "punitive damages"? I believe the WTO couldn't care less. In fact, that explains the huge difference between the claimed losses and allowed profit - the WTO is saying "well, it would not be fair for you to earn too much off this, so we'll set the cap at 21M... but if you can stretch this to cost the USA as much as you lost - feel free." You are in breach of an agreement. You can swallow the losses or exit the treaty. If you do, your IP is no longer protected at all, making this case seem minor. Enjoy.
In fact, I for one urge you to throw a fit and exit the treaty! Every US movie, book or song available for free - works fine for me, thank you very much! I can't wait!
Maybe. I don't know and I don't care. That's the beauty of international agreements - if you sing them, you promise to make them work somehow in your country. If you can't do that, you're in breach and you shouldn't have signed at all. That's the way they are designed, because that's the only way they can possibly work. If you sign, it's your problem how to enforce them locally.
It's not a huge moral issue whether you, personally, get paid for work that you did outside whatever contract you have. In this case, it's a simple matter of contract law and has nothing to do with the subject. Moderators, please mod the parent off-topic.
I hope you learned your lesson about contracts. If you were smart, your lawyer would already have taken care of this. If your contract had said something about providing these additional services, and the accountant refused payment, then it would be trivial for a competent lawyer to get you paid. Y'know, assuming that there's any way to verify that you actually did the work. That also should be trivial; you have system logs for that, right?
You done fucked up at least three times. Now go hire a lawyer, set a goddamn fucking password login and user log for the fucking servers, and quit fucking bitching about random shit no one cares about.
Properly, that should have been <b>to</b> -- do note that I am using html entities in order to show the markup. Example of markup use: "...to infinity, and beyond!"
In this day and age, and on this particular website, there is very little good reason not to know that much HTML. I hope that this is just a fat-fingered mistake on your part, or that you are willing to learn the html, because otherwise you may not be taken seriously. I would consider that a great shame because otherwise your comment was both informative and insightful. I appreciate you posting it, and hope that you continue to do so.
-- some random jackass
The supremacy clause is a constitutional power. The 10th amendment does not enumerate powers.
The inability of the federal government to cap speed limits directly is consistent with this since any point of a highway is only in one state at a time. The Zimmerman case as well is consistent with this since as you say it did not involve anything outside of a single state or any area where the federal government can specifically intervene in an otherwise purely intra-state matter. These examples only show that the supremacy clause doesn't completely negate state law, but this does not completely negate federal law either.
The gambling issue is *specifically* a case involving sites outside of a state's borders. The supremacy clause would not allow the federal government to force a state to have a purely state lottery or prohibit a purely state lottery, but it does allow the federal government to intervene if a state tried to prohibit its residents from possessing a lottery ticket from another state or in this case from gambling on a website that is located outside of the state
"Right now the members of Congress could not agree that the earth is round, the sky is blue, and the sun is the center of the solar system."
Well, this is slashdot, so.... can someone do the math and tell us exactly how far from the center of the sun, the center of the solar system is (on average)? :) While the sun is obviously the most influential part of the total mass of our solar system, and thus it's center-of-(mass/gravity?)...
No, it doesn't work that way. They, as everyone else, has an idea about what a general term or phrase means. If the mortgage on your home said you couldn't use the home for commercial purposes, then 10 years after you are paying for it high speed internet finally makes it to your house and they decide that working from home is "commercial purposes". Somehow I doubt you would all the sudden say, "well it can be interpreted that way or anyway they like, I guess I have to drive an hour in rush hour traffic twice a day again". I'm willing to bet that you and everyone else would claim that it wasn't commercial purposes for you to work from home just because the internet finally made it possible.
We already see that so how does it feel? I mean seriously, do you think members of the WTO do not regulate the content that enters their country? There are 22 members of the Arab league and 57 members of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation inside the WTO who not all, but some strictly forbid religious materials not of Islamic origin, BTW, those organizations are not just countries palling around together, they are fraternal and recognized in the WTO as such.
I seriously doubt you could come up with any interpretation of that treaty. You have already demonstrated that you do not know or understand it and you have demonstrated already that you have little knowledge of the situation surrounding the US gambling issues that Antigua has. You sound like someone who is just pissed and running off at the mouth because the US outlaws gambling, just like the lawyer from Texas who went to the WTO to cause this problem in the first place.
I don't think you understand the problem. Some state make internet gambling illegal. The interstate commerce clause could not make those states change that. The feds already made it illegal to gamble across state lines and states that specifically allow online gambling require servers to be set up in state and the site is regulated like a casino within the state. the feds also already made it illegal for a credit car processor to process transactions between an online gambling site and an American person which hasn't stopped the problem.
Part of Antigua's argument specifically addressed the fact that specific states allow forms of online gambling even though the fed does not. So the interstate commerce clause has already been used but has not worked.
Don't trust yourself then. That's ok, I will explain your problem to you in a minute.
Reread the section of the constitution you posted. and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States has a specific meaning. It means that the United States, which is constituted by the Constitution, can make only treaties that are constitutional or under the authority of the constitution. That's where your argument flopps on the ground like a dieing fish out of water. I actually feel sorry for you and it as it gasps for air trying to save itself while roasting in the sun.
No treaty can be made that alters the US constitution because the constitution says the treaty has to be made under the authority of the United States and the United States can only alter the constitution by amendment procedures.
The Founding Fathers were smarter than you.
You didn't cede anything, you willingly signed up for the treaty !!
And now you're all buthurt because you have to follow it, since if you break it everyone else will too, and you would still lose.
If that were only the case, there wouldn't be an issue. The WTO is not saying that Antigua can ignore the same treaty as the US effectively did, they have said that they can ignore other treaties under WIPO to the tune of 21 million some dollars.
it is obvious that you don't have a clue about this.The US did not in any way shape or form sign a treaty then fail to implement it. The US signed a treaty well before online gambling was possible or possible outside a small rare situation and the treaty has later been reinterpreted to include online gambling despite the US having a ban on gambling across state lines since the wire fraud act of 1941. The prevailing argument was that because states under their own sovereign right inside the US allow gambling inside the state, the US is non-compliant.
They already won
:)
Twice !!
Now they are just deciding how and where to rub your faces in it
A treaty is only an agreement to change or solidify the federal government's relations with other sovereign nation's. It is not in any way an amendment to the US constitutions. The Constitution says all laws have to be made in accordance with the constitution and that all treaties must be made under the same authority.
The absurdity of what you suggest can be illustrated rather easily. Can the senate and the president of the US sign a treaty to give California to China or to abolish the US constitution altogether and go back under English rule? If you say no, I say then a treaty cannot alter the constitution and must be made in accordance with it. Plain and simple.
How about all those treaties you both signed?
Dont you have a military thats only too keen to enforce those type of things at the barrel of a gun?
Were you not yourself suggesting this?
It would still be a violation, as the supplier isnt allowed to sell it to you.
You would basicly be receiving stolen goods.
If Antigua "sells" it to you for the low low price of 1c all you can eat, then thats now fine, or will be soon.
And what do you think the WTO would think of that. Just itching for round 2 aren't you.
All the supremacy clause says is that federal law is supreme over state law. However, in order for federal law to be valid, it has to be constitutionally valid which means the constitution has to give the federal government jurisdiction and lacking that, the 10th amendment prohibits the law from being valid.
No, what is shows is that the federal government cannot just make a law and have it override state law. It shows that the government has to have constitutional authority to make the law and constitutional authority to impose it over the state laws else the 10th amendment steps in and decides in favor of the states.
Actually, no. It is specifically an issue involving sites within a state's borders. The feds already made gambling across state lines illegal. They even made it illegal to process credit card payments to and from people inside the US and gambling sites. The problem is that some of the states have made internet gambling legal if the servers are located within the state and the gambling house has a presence within the state and is subject to state laws. The WTO said that because some states allow online gambling inside those states, the feds must allow online gambling in every state with servers and companies located anywhere in the world in order to satisfy a provision of a treaty that has to be interpreted to include a technology created after the treaty was signed despite the US prohibiting gambling across the state lines since the 1941 wire fraud act.
(well, besides just letting poor people from the third world stream in over our borders, but that's another discussion).
Its a prety quick discussion.
No this doesn't happen, and hasn't happened for quite a while.
NO, the treaties in the WTO are not the collective WTO. The US could leave _a_ treaty and rejoin _that_ treaty without leaving the WTO, There are treaties right now that members are not all signatory. It would be no different other then a final clarification.
I see now why you posted such nonsense anonymously.
The US never signed any treaty that said they would allow or disallow gambling. There is none whatsoever at all that says so.
What happened is that a provision of a treaty that existed before online gambling was around or common had been interpreted to include online gambling after it became common which kicked off the problems with the feds banning it and some states allowing it within their state borders.
There is no constitutional problem, there is a treaty problem where the US should at minimum have the ability to exempt themselves from the new interpretations of the treaty as is customary in contract law. This can easily be done with a signing statement but it is somewhat more difficult when an article is already signed then reinterpreted after the fact.
Show me one treaty under the WTO that specifically says online casinos or gambling in it. What's that, you cannot? Is it because there isn't one and this isn't as cut and dry as you pretend it to be?
The bottom line is that a provision in a treaty in place before online gambling was possible had been reinterpreted to include online gambling and at the very minimum, the US should have had the opportunity to exempt itself from the new interpretations of existing provisions. However, that did not happen and the new interpretations were then used to claim that because some states allow gambling within the states, the federal ban on gambling which had existed since 1941 and well before the treaty was created, somehow violated the treaty.
Also, there will be little to no repercussions because the US is a founding member of the WTO with veto power which is why only antigua which has nothing but US tourism to lose is the only country to fight this provision. They also did it at the request of a Texas lawyer who was upset that his friend had been jailed for money laundering in connection to operating illegal online casinos in the US.
But to be clear, the us never signed a treaty that said you must allow online ganbling. It signed a treaty that has later been interpreted to allow something that didn't exist when the treaty was created.
No the US signed a treaty that said it wouldnt discriminate against other countries with respect to trade.
And then tried to do just that.
If the US wants to ban gambling, then ban gambling.
The WTO wouldnt care at all.
If the US is going to allow gambling, then they are supposed to allow competition from foerign countries that have also signed up to the treaty under the terms of that treaty or suffer the penalties.
Why is this so hard for people to understand. Its blatant protectionism and basicly the whole reason for the WTO in the first place.
> The difficulty, of course, is that the US signed a treaty saying it would abide by this sort of ruling. So now what?
So what. This should be seen as an affront to national soverienty by pretty much every body rather than the anti-USA hate-gasm it's turned into.
If the shoe were on the other foot, everyone would be defending the country that dared to have it's own independent law.
Blatant hypocrisy all around.
Remember, this is the precedent you begged for.
So all treaties are null and void now?
And then not only Antiqua can flout American copy-write, so can everyone else?
I'm not sure everyone will be happy with that situation.
Either treaties are useful and will be abided by or they aren't and wont.
Your free to leave the WTO any time you like.
Have a good think if you think its better or worse to be a part of it and then have your government decide, shouldn't take too long.
The Treaty never included online gambling when they signed it. That was something argued to exist in an interpretation of a clause well after the US signed the treaty. When the US signed the treaty, online gambling didn't exist and what little form that could pass as online gambling was outlawed by the 1941 wire fraud act.
Bullshit. It is common practice to do this. It is common practice to have signing statements to treaties and the whole nine yards.
There is nothing strange about the math. There are currently 12 countries in Europe considered a monarchy. Almost all countries in Europe were a monarchy at one time. The comment about 12 remaining wasn't to show all of Europe is under a monarchy, it was to show how little separation from those times it is. People in Europe are subjects of the government, not the government being subjects of the people. There is a fundamental difference in that statement, can you tell me what it is?
Reread the section of the constitution you posted. and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States has a specific meaning.
Yes, it means properly signed and ratified.
Learn to love Alaska
A treaty is only an agreement to change or solidify the federal government's relations with other sovereign nation's. It is not in any way an amendment to the US constitutions. The Constitution says all laws have to be made in accordance with the constitution and that all treaties must be made under the same authority.
Common defense treaties were common at the time. They would contradict the Constitution in compelling war without a congressional vote (though Congress would do so, or breach the treaty), and compel the CinC to act. Such common defense treaties were common and never challenged. The fact that they were not challenged for the reasons you state, indicated you are wrong. Reality trumps ideology every time.
Learn to love Alaska
It's quite a well worn shoe.
Have a look at all the previous WTO rulings, the shoe gets around.
Every other country just accepts the judges decision and moves on.
Only America thinks its above the law and starts prattling on a bunch of nonsense about sovereignty.
You entered the competition, you read the rules, the judges decision is final. End of story.
No it did not.
The WTO interpreted the state's sovereign rights to be under the control of the federal government in which it is not.
The US did ban gambling and has had a ban on gambling since the 1942 wire fraud act. The problem is that US law doesn't intrude the sovereignty of the states within the US unless the constittuion gives it jurisdiction to do so. The US constitution specifically denies this ability which is why a state can defy federal law and allow gambling within the state. That contention right there is where the WTO got hung up. It said because the feds allow the states to have gambling, the US allows gambling. The problem is the US cannot force the states to either stop allowing gambling or to allow gambling. The feds cannot make any law saying gambling is legal or illegal and force the states to obey it. It can only prohibit gambling across state lines.
The US doesn't allow gambling. States within the US do. There is a clear distinction there. The US federal government, even though it appears differently sometimes, does not have an all encompassing authority over the states.
My guess is because people like you have no clue to the political structure of the US nor the situation at hand and think it is like any other tin pot dictatorship where a leader proclaims something and everyone in the territory is all the sudden subject to it. The US isn't that way. The treaty in question says nothing about gambling, it is a provision inside the treaty that had been interpreted to include gambling after the fact, and the lack of control the US government has over the states is being used to show the US isn't enforcing something they have no power to enforce.
The war powers act contradicts the Constitution in allowing the president to wage war without congress acting too.
The problem with this line of thinking is that common defense treaties as well as the war powers act actually have constitutional support. What they all say is that the defense of the ally is so crucial to the defense and security of the United States, we will treat an attack on one as an attack on the other. Nobody will legitimately claim the president does not have the power to defend the nation from invasion. We have used this idea or concept to use force abroad more than 100 times but declared war in only five cases: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II. Congress however, supports and authorizes our use of force like with Afghanistan and Iraq which has no formal declaration of war but is recognized as such.
The fact that common defense treaties were never challenged does not mean they changed the US constitution. It is because it didn't need to change the US constitution. You are correct though, Reality trumps ideology every time. I just wish you could realize that.
It means that all treaties made must be constitutional. The United States has no authority to make any law or treaty in violation of the constitution.
Yes, part of being constitutional is properly signed and ratified but it cannot require non-citizens be eligible for elected office, it cannot require certain speech or religion to be forbidden, it cannot be in violation of the constitution in any way shape or form. All treaties have to be made under the authority of the United States and the United State's authority is specifically limited by the constitution that constitute the United States of America.
You are correct though, Reality trumps ideology every time. I just wish you could realize that.
I do realize it. The process for an Amendment and a treaty is nearly identical (the same number of states must approve), and they are both The Law of the Land. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that treaties may not be binding on the several states, and the states agreed to follow those rules, so I can't see any logical or legal argument for why you can't make a treaty that's unenforceable by the federal government, but requires the states to enact it. You've presented nothing that contradicts that stance, but ran off on tangents. Treaties are The Law of the Land, and the states must abide by them.
Learn to love Alaska
It means that all treaties made must be constitutional. The United States has no authority to make any law or treaty in violation of the constitution.
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any more true. Next, you'll tell me that the speed limit was never 55 because the federal government doesn't have the power to set speed limits. Sorry, but 21 years of reality trumps your ideology. Treaties are binding on the US Law of the Land, and binding on the states of the union as members of the union, even if the feds can't pass a law to do it, they can sign a treaty to do it. While there may be theoretical arguments for invalidating a properly ratified treaty, no such ruling has ever occurred. And until you are Chief Justice, your opinion means no more than mine. So asserting from false authority will never convince me.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not sure what you are talking about. It takes two third of the house of representatives and two third of the senate to purpose a constitutional amendment and then three fourths of the states have to approve of it also before it happens. The senate cannot just say here is an amendment to the constitution, vote and have it amended if it passes by two thirds.
Because you are under the mistaken impression that a treaty can be made in contradiction to the constitution and thereby change the constitution. Once you get past that flaw, you see exactly where the problem is.
Treaties that violate the Constitution are unconstitutional laws of the land. No law can remain unconstitutional even if it is supreme law of the land.
The Government simply cannot make a law or treaty that is unconstitutional and have it supersede the constitution. Otherwise the government could do away with the constitution altogether with only the president and two third the senate. Why would the framers intend to allow that when they require both houses and three fourths the states to amend the constitutions? Do you seriously think the framers were more concerned with limiting the influence of the states then they were foreign governments considering how this country was founded and all the provisions for the elected officials to be citizens and in some cases natural born citizens?
If you really thought about your position, you would realize how absurd it is.
Except the US constitution gives congress the power to do so specifically in article 1 section 8 To establish post offices and post roads;. It is hard to argue that any road a post office employees travels to either deliver mail or to move mail from one post office to another is not a post road. The best the federal government can can do otherwise is withholding funding if the states do not comply with what they want them to do and we saw that smacked down a bit in the Obamacare ruling which the court said withholding medicaid and medicare funding if the states refused to expand medicaid was unconstitutional.
And constitutional authority smacks your ideology in the face.
Wrong. All treaties have to be made in accordance with the constitution. If congress cannot make a law to do something, no treaty can either.
Well, I was hoping rational thought and logic would play an important role in changing your mind but if you are insisting on closing your eyes and maintaining your beliefs, then I doubt there is anything left to discuss.
BTW, here are some parting shots you should consider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
Where the court specifically placed the constitution above any international treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medellin_v._Texas
Where the court purposely ignored provisions in a treaty and allowed the state of Texas to execute a prisoner of Mexican nationality against the wishes of the then President George W. Bush and international organizations.
Sure, that just means the website and company behind it has to be based in Antigua, not that the customers have to be there.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Isn't that kind of like a christian leaving the church only to join up again right away with the caveat that he wants to opt out of the 6th, 7th and 8th commandments? I don't think it works that way.
Well, you're wrong. It does work that way. As proof, I offer every single protestant denomination that has ever existed. Especially the Church of England.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The US can control many other nations through our ports. If you don't respect our IP laws, your stuff is not unloaded. The dollar may not be worth what it used to but everyone still wants to sell us stuff.
Rubbish. You act like the treaty said "You shall not ban online gaming located in foreign signatories." I promise you it didn't. We signed the treaty, then some board of bureaucrats decided that what we were doing was wrong - the ruling could have gone the other way.
It's like you sign a contract to work somewhere, then they tell you you have to murder someone - I mean you did sign a contract, you know?
Lol, not even close. It would indeed be a horrendous war but we would crush China. Money, technology, and experience really really matter.
Odd how people can't read these days. I said "One of". And Europe is cheating, it's not a real country. Why not say the economy of the northern hemisphere is bigger, right?
Bullshit. They arbitrarily grouped together "gambling" as a monolith. Antigua can setup the same types of online "gambling" that the US allows inside the US. This is all a joke based on the premise that "gambling is gambling".
Since drugs are drugs and US companies can manufacture and sell aspirin online, maybe Antigua should be able to sell heroin online right?
Pwnt. That just happened.
How's Cuba's economy and standard of living these days? I mean sure, you can pretend they have great medical care based on the risible lies and flim-flam of Moore's movie, but let's face it Cuba is much shittier than it would be with normalized US relations.
No, douchebag, I wasn't suggesting this. I was suggesting we give them the Cuba treatment, meaning cut of all trade/relations with them.
You ever been to Detroit?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Shut up, scum. This is a ruling, not part of the treaty. Try to keep things straight in your head.
Hell no, and never plan to. Indeed parts of the US are shitholes. Easy enough to just not go there, though.
What was probably said was "we are all children of god", judging from attempts I've seen to backtrack to the original Amaraic (Which are generally tightly coupled verses that make any attempts at atmpering very obvious)
"The Canadians could probably defeat the US in the state the US military and it's leadership is in."
If they do, will they burn the white house down again?
If Antigua pursues this, the U.S. can first, issue a travel advisory to U.S. citizens wishing to travel there, second, ban all flights from the U.S. to Antigua, and third, ban any international flight that passes through the U.S. or any that stop in Antigua before traveling to the U.S. Personally, I don't believe gambling should be allowed on the internet at all. If all this fails to detour Antigua from cashing in on pirated U.S. movies, TV, books, etc., maybe we should just "liberate" all those poor souls living there and make them a U.S. protectorate! Then their internet gambling sites would be legal in the U.S. and they could rip off all the poor schmuck marks in the U.S. stupid enough to engage in gambling.
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
I don't know, maybe if we asked them nice and provided the gasoline & torch for free? Take up a collection?
If there was a nuclear war, the last place our enemies would strike would be Washington, D.C. You don't take the enemies' own millstone from around his neck.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Same here. Why's Cuba so bad?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
The difficulty, of course, is that the US signed a treaty saying it would abide by this sort of ruling. So now what?
Of course they will abide, but they did not say when. Perhaps it is when ONLINE Gambling is developed by each state and you will have 50+ American choices and Puerto Rico .
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
The Senate votes to modify or repeal it, and the President signs off. Same with any time the US does anything with a treaty.
Difficulty: Being a part of the WTO has, on balance, been extremely beneficial to the US, even accounting for this ruling. Seriously - the US has been a party to more winning cases in front of the WTO than any other country, by far. Should we just poop all over every other industry in order to maintain some sort of neo-Puritan approach to gambling?
Well, as I see it, the problem with offshore gambling is more offshore gambling proceeds, offshore gambling accounting, and offshore gambling taxes, which means Congress can neither get their grubby little paws into it, nor can they get a VIP comp when they junket on an investigatory evaluation. (Because offshore gambling is more server farms than glitzy showgirls and free cocktails.)
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Not to mention the fact no one much likes us right now because we are a sneaky little two-faced rat that can't keep our noses out of anyone's business, friend or foe, and not even have the courtesy to let the friendly parties know in advance.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Doesn't help when they start tracking the money...
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
mail cash
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Not so much. If it disappears in the mail? Or if the casino says it disappeared in the mail? And we are talking LOTS of cash here.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Friends matter a lot too.
Try not to piss us all off.
Lol, you seem convinced that by signing a treaty we signed away our rights to legislate within our borders. We didn't, I promise you.
No you didn't, and you can do what you like in this regard within your own borders.
But externally you have to accept the punishment for not fulfilling your obligations to the other signatories to the treaty.
You can try crying about it because you're having trouble enforcing your obligations on your states. But ultimately, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, that's your problem.
I can already tell you that Antigua will not win this, we won't be legalizing online gambling and they wont become a copyright free zone. It's all very silly.
They already have won this (twice). They are just deciding the exact details of the pain they will inflict upon you.
Thats fine, and until such time, Antigua can do what its planing to do.
I for one am glad to our Antiguan overlords for restoring US Copyright to its original Constitutional period of 17 years with one renewal during the life of the author.
Now if only they could do the same for patents and restore them to 13 years with one renewal by the human author.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The US can control many other nations through our ports. If you don't respect our IP laws, your stuff is not unloaded. The dollar may not be worth what it used to but everyone still wants to sell us stuff.
That's an interesting position to take, that the US can ignore international trade laws with impunity, by threatening to annihilate its own economy through a multilateral trade war.
Once again, US IP laws have no direct impact on citizens of other nations, except by voluntary participation in international treaty. Antigua selling US content without compensating US copyright holders is NOT a violation of US IP law,because US IP law doesn't apply to Antiguan citizens. The US does not get to pass laws for the whole world. Antiguan citizens don't have to obey US law, they only have to obey Antiguan law. Antigua itself required its citizens to honor US copyright by Antiguan Law, by virtue of international treaty. Without that treaty, US law is worth exactly nothing outside its borders. By ignoring the ruling of an international trade court in favor of its own national interests, the US is violating the law. The injured party has recourse to remedy that injury. To claim this doesn't "respect our IP laws" ignores the fact that its the US that is violating the law, and complaining about a violation that cannot exist outside of international law. Outside of international law, there's no such thing as an Antiguan violating US copyright law. US Copyright Law does not apply to citizens of countries other than the US.
Except by virtue of treaty which a lot of people seem to think the US is free to ignore, or should even contemplate rejecting out of hand.
I see from your detailed response you have strong feelings about this subject. My son has a managing position in the legal department of a German company that is a direct competitor to GE. Trade treaties are signed to insure fair trade practices are enforced. It just seems that the fate of the average factory worker was overlooked.
Almost 20% of Antigua's GDP is trade with the US. They don't have to obey our laws, we don't have to buy their stuff. Trade war, bring it on. The US hasn't won a war in seventy years but I think we might win one with Antigua.
So, to be clear, the United States democractically elected government passed a law, that applies only to United States citizens. A bunch of foreign bankers have decided that they don't like that law, and so they are overruling it.
No the United States democratically elected government signed a treaty (of its own free will and heavily biased towards US interests) that deals with trade around the world. The US has laws that violate the treaty within its own borders and is unable to convince the states to uphold the treaty. Usually this is where Americans suggest bombing and regime change to enforce its will on others.
I'm sure Slashdot will be thrilled with any decision that hurts intellectual property enforcement, but try to look at what's going on here. It is really, really bad for democracy when elected officials can be overruled by overseas bankers. The United States is right to refuse to comply with the ruling, and should do everything in its power to resist. Our democracy ain't exactly working great, but it's better than a bunch of unelected bureaucrats ruling by decree from overseas.
If the US doesn't want to uphold its side of the deal, its free to leave the WTO. See what that does to intellectual property enforcement.
Its really really bad for everyone when agreements between governments arent agreements at all. Its really really bad when elected officials can ignore their own laws and just do as they please (constitution anyone). Should all the other countries who disagree with treaties they signed, or change their mind later be allowed to just ignore them? What about other types of contracts? The United States should realise that these agreements are in its own best interests.
TL;DR The US is free to take its ball and go home.
It wont be missed.
Ha Ha Ha
You're so funny.
Whats the main component of all your exports IP.
Whats the value of your IP when you leave the treaty?
ZERO
HA HA, buthurt american is still buthurt.
A ruling on a treaty is not part of the treaty, lol. Tell it to the judge when he throws your broke ass in jail.
It's not a concern of the rest of the world what laws, signing statements, or authority you do or don't have, or anything you do internally.
Really, none whatsoever.
No laws inside your country make any difference, pass any that you like.
It really is very simple.
You break your treaty obligations (In any way, for what ever reason). Then you have broken your agreement.
If you break your agreement the WTO can and will punish you.
Please break more of these agreements, even leave the WTO if you like.
Then maybe we can all get rid of stupid perpetual copyrights and all the other bullshit your country is trying to enforce on others via these treaties.
I dont think you understand the point.
Its not a concern of Antigua of how or why you break your agreement.
Broken agreement is broken.
Broken agreement has penalties, penalties apply.
No, douchebag, I wasn't suggesting this. I was suggesting we give them the Cuba treatment, meaning cut of all trade/relations with them.
Oh sorry, my mistake.
Not the military, the CIA then.
Anyway, your solution to the IP loss is to give them all your IP and not worry about any agreements you have instead of just giving them a tiny little bit?
Im sure they can find lots of other customers only too willing to trade with them.
They wouldn't have to leave the WTO, just remove yourself from the treaty then sign and ratify it again with a signing statement that negates the problem.
You clearly don't understand the situation.
Signing statements are irrelevant, in this situation doubly so.
Signing statements don't have any affect on the law.
Even if they did, your internal laws have no affect on your external treaty obligations.
The problem is that the US is not government by one federal government. The states have sovereign authority in these matters and the US federal government has no power to act over top of them. Simply put, a signing statement to this effect should have been there to begin with.
The problem is you agreed to do something without realising you cant actually do it.
Someone obviously didn't understand the consequences, the WTO court doesn't understand the US political jurisdiction, so it simply needs fixed.
The WTO doesn't have to understand US political jurisdiction, its irrelevant, democracy, republic, monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, totalitarianism . The WTO doesnt care in the slightest.
Your government didnt fully understand the consequences of signing the treaty.
This is completely your problem, you signed up to the WTO and agreed to be bound to its terms. If you cant keep your agreement, then the WTO will award damages to the aggrieved party.
There is likely no fix available. Either force regime change on the recalcitrant states, or suffer the penalties imposed by the WTO.
Both those options would be better for you than leaving the WTO.
I see from your detailed response you have strong feelings about this subject. My son has a managing position in the legal department of a German company that is a direct competitor to GE. Trade treaties are signed to insure fair trade practices are enforced. It just seems that the fate of the average factory worker was overlooked.
Almost 20% of Antigua's GDP is trade with the US. They don't have to obey our laws, we don't have to buy their stuff. Trade war, bring it on. The US hasn't won a war in seventy years but I think we might win one with Antigua.
The problem is that Antigua's economy is so small its dwarfed by the US entertainment industry. If the US retaliates illegally to the actions of Antigua which are explicitly sanctioned by the WTO, the obvious response would likely be for the WTO to continue to authorized additional exceptions or suspensions of intellectual property protection to Antigua until eventually the US stops all trade with Antigua, and Antigua replaces all of that trade gap by selling US-registered media. The US can't win such a war not because its not powerful enough, but because its too powerful: it has everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Apple makes more net profit from iTunes than Antigua's entire GDP. When you have all the money and you're fighting someone with none of the money, the odds of you coming out with even more of all the money and the other guy leaving with even less of none of the money are virtually zero. How can the US possibly win this fight when the entire country of Antigua can make more money selling blue rays of the Dark Knight Trilogy than it can actually being Antigua? This would be like the Walt Disney Company sueing a homeless person for wearing Mickey Mouse ears in public. The power imbalance is enormous, but nevertheless one side has nothing to lose and the other nothing to win which makes all that power worthless.
The US signed a treaty well before online gambling was possible or possible outside a small rare situation and the treaty has later been reinterpreted to include online gamblin
So your one of those people who add "On the internet" to things and claim that they are new inventions?
You dont unload our stuff and we go straight to the WTO for round 2.
If it gets this far countries wouldnt be unloading their stuff in your cargo ports.
But uploading all your IP to other countries data ports.
Good luck trying to block that.
Well actually, none of those things are true.
Where is moderation: -1 False?
Yes, you have to choose your battles. I'm sure there are "legal" ways the US can respond to protect US based businesses, ask Kim Dotcom.