Slashdot Log In
WTO Rules on Internet Gambling Case
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Dec 21, 2007 01:31 PM
from the when-local-politics-go-international dept.
from the when-local-politics-go-international dept.
doggod writes "The Associated Press reports today that the WTO has finally ruled on Antigua's complaint against the US over online gambling. The complaints stems from what Antigua sees as unfair trade practices relating to the US passage last year of a law that forbids banks from handling money to and from online casinos. The amount they awarded is significantly less than Antigua asked for. If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?"
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: US Outlaws Online Gambling 579 comments
imaginaryelf writes, "As reported earlier on Slashdot, in the closing hours of the US Congressional session on Friday, September 29, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (H.R.4411.RH) was attached to the Safe Port Act of 2006 H.R.4954.EAS.
To the surprise of many, the bill passed both the House and the Senate, and Bush is expected to sign it into law this week. This effectively outlaws online gambling in the US, by way of making it illegal for credit-card companies to collect payments for bets. The financial markets punished the stock of online gambling companies as some prepared to pull out of the US entirely."
[+]
Games: WTO Awards Caribbean Country Right to Ignore US Copyright 460 comments
The WTO's recent ruling on Antigua's complaint against the US over the banning of online gambling resulted in a payment to the island nation much less than they asked for. It appears, though, that this payment was just part of the WTO's compensation package for Antigua/Barbuda. Via Kotaku, the Hollywood Reporter notes that the Caribbean country can now freely ignore US copyright laws - legally. This dispensation is apparently limited to some $21 million a year. "The WTO often takes decisions awarding trade compensation in cases where one nation's policies are found to break its rules. But this is only the second time the compensation lets one country violate intellectual property laws. In this case, Antigua will -- in theory -- be allowed to distribute copies of American DVDs, CDs and games and software with impunity. 'That has only been done once before and is, I believe, a very potent weapon,' Antigua's lawyer Mark Mendel said. 'I hope that the United States government will now see the wisdom in reaching some accommodation with Antigua over this dispute.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
no (Score:4, Funny)
Ironclad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow, I don't see that happening. I'm betting the **AA-holes would go after you, anyhow.
cue "politics as usual" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:cue "politics as usual" Whatever the case, (Score:3, Funny)
Antiguity...
Re:cue "politics as usual" (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I prefer Las Vegas casinos, though, because hookers are legal.
And speaking of gambling, I'd not gambled in a casino since a couple of buddies talked me into going to Nevada when I was stationed in California in the USAF in 1975. So last summer I went to the riverboat, and the new electronic slot machines SUCK! Boring as hell. You young folks don
Re:cue "politics as usual" (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds silly, but if there ever was something that interstate commerce clause was supposed to be used for, it would be this. Even if you don't agree with what the Feds are doing, this is exactly what their power to get involved was created for.
Parent
nahhh (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Can" implies legal right. But make no mistake, the US WILL just do it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:nahhh (Score:5, Interesting)
The US doesn't need the WTO to impose sanctions, no. But if it does so then it's blatant protectionism of American gambling and copyright industries against Antiguan competition. The EU and Japan have both been making pro-Antiguan noises in this dispute, and if the US decides to try some form of economic bullying on Antigua, then it's possible that Europe and Japan might step in. The US is rich and powerful, but not so rich that it will risk a devastating trade war with Europe when the dollar's already on the slide, over a few gambling sites and pirate havens in the Caribbean.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but what does 'step in' mean? Would that imply a stern lecture? The US won't care. Would it imply an escalating tarrif war? Europe/Japan wouldn't risk playing that car
Re: (Score:2)
If the fight really wasn't ours, I'd say you were right; Europe would leave Antigua out to dry. But Antigua's not the only country troubled by America's protectionist gaming laws. There are plenty of European betting sites that would love a piece of that action. Righ
Re:nahhh (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't "protectionism". This is moral meddling. The US wants the ability to
control who gambles on what where. They don't have that ability with a foreign
company. This isn't "protectionism". It's simply a reflection of the fact that
in this area the US is "attempting to legislate morality".
It does this in a very byzantine fashion.
The same goes for other forms of "vice" like alchohol or sex.
Try talking to a small US vineyard trying to sell to customers in other States.
The extreme reaction here is just an excuse for mindless US bashing. Some people
have found their gift wrapped excuse and by golly they're going to use it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:nahhh (Score:5, Insightful)
I was once dumbfounded by it being illegal for me to buy a bottle of wine in Massachusetts on Sunday. As I stood there arguing with the cashier, a girl behind me in line (in early twenties, seemingly "progressive", and without a Bible under her arm) expressed her support for the law. It went something like: "Yeah, it is a good idea for there being one day a week, when buying alcohol is illegal. I like it."
She could not explain why and shut up, when I suggested, she avoids sex on Thursdays. But I remain puzzled, how a modern American can see fit to impose arbitrary and gratuitous limitations on others without a good and easily explainable reason.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, that's an invalid argument. A couple of centuries ago, it was a "local custom" to burn witches in this same state.
Nobody should be legislating morality based on this example. Nobody. The argument you are applying to "the Fed" vs. the State, can just as easily be applied to the State vs. the town.
Re:nahhh (Score:4, Insightful)
SCOTUS recently struck down state laws prohibiting protectionism against out-of-state vineyards if in-state vineyards are allowed to sell directly to consumers.
This case is protectionism, pure and simple. Allowing multi-state lotteries, betting on horse racing, and betting on fantasy sports while denying other forms of gambling is not morally consistent with an anti-gambling position.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the EU and Japan just wanted trade concessions, which is their right since the US withdrew entirely from the gambling agreement. The US announced deals with the EU, Japan, and Canada earlier this week. The EU got some shipping concessions and warehousing concessions, with the main benefactor being D
you're surely cracked (Score:3, Interesting)
This has got to be a joke. The concept of "unclean hands" is not applicable on an international policy-and-treaty basis. One cannot ignore the rule of one treaty because another country ignores the rule of another treaty. Even though the US Constitution ranks the treaty as being the supreme law of the land (theoretically above anything the executive, legislative or judiciary can do), this does not apply to whether or not you can legitimately grab a copy of Britney's latest dance video without concern for authority.
Re: (Score:2)
I've said elsewhere that it will probably still be illegal for US citizens to download mp3s from Antigua - it's just the Antiguans who will no longer be committing an offence. But it could still make you invulner
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though the US Constitution ranks the treaty as being the supreme law of the land (theoretically above anything the executive, legislative or judiciary can do)
Your parenthetical is completely wrong. Treaties are not necessarily any more the "supreme law of the land" than any other law of the United States. The supremacy law privileges the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States over the laws of the states, but it does not (clearly) rank treaties over laws. (It reads: "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 Sta
Re: (Score:2)
Circular logic. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but, the online gambling might've allowed Antigua's economy to grow 10 or 20 or 30 times it's current size. That's like saying it's unreasonable to increase a prisoner's rations from the crust of a slice of bread to 3 square meals a day because it's 10 times the food he's currently getting and it's excessive.
I'm no fan of gambling, but every time I see this gambling case in the news, I can see the obvious hypocrisy in play here. This is simply the US trying to protect the domestic gambling industry. If gambling were really that bad, the US would outlaw it altogether. But to say that it is legal for people to gamble here, but not with foreign operators, is simply disgusting.
I dunno... (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry, I only trust idiotic legal theories from New York Country Lawyer has weighed in to endorse them.
Um, What?... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but what does that have to do with the the WTO, Antiqua, and the US ban on online gambling? And, if it does have anything to do with the topic(s) of the article (at work - busy - no time to read TFA right now), then it would be nice if the summary posted to
WTO proves to have no teeth (Score:4, Informative)
Antigua and Barbuda today expressed its mixed reaction to the ruling of the arbitrators issued today in its long running dispute with the United States over Internet gambling. The panel agreed with Antigua that it had no effective trade sanctions against the United States in the area of services and authorised Antigua to suspend its obligations to the United States in respect of copyrights, trademarks and other forms of intellectual property rights. However, it went on to set Antigua's level of annual trade loss at US $21.0 million, much less than the US $3.4 billion Antigua had requested, although considerably more than the US $500,000 the United States had proposed.
In an unprecedented approach that is sure to arouse controversy, the arbitrators assessed Antigua's level of damages based upon a hypothetical form of compliance proposed by the United States rather than through the withdrawal of the overall prohibition on the provision of remote gaming services. This decision resulted in a rare, perhaps unprecedented disagreement among the arbitrators, with one of the three panellists dissenting from the approach adopted by the other two members.
Mark Mendel, the lawyer who has been spearheading this case for the Antiguan government since it began back in 2003 observed "I am pleased that the panel approved our ability to cross-retaliate by suspension of intellectual property rights of United States business interests. That has only been done once before and is, I believe, a very potent weapon." Mr Mendel expressed less satisfaction with the amount of damages assessed. "I find it astonishing that two of the three panellists would in essence grant the United States the benefit of a hypothetical method of compliance most favourable to the American side in assessing Antigua's level of trade impairment. What appears to have been done here is assuming a form of compliance that has not happened and probably will not happen without giving Antigua the ability to contest the method under the WTO's normal procedures," he added. Unlike other WTO rulings, awards of arbitrators are not subject to review by the Appellate Body of the WTO.
While questioning the low number, Mr Mendel remains positive about the dispute going forward. "US $21 million a year in intellectual property rights suspension going forward indefinitely is not such a bad asset to have. I hope that the United States government will now see the wisdom in reaching some accommodation with Antigua over this dispute and look forward to seeing efforts in this regard."
Re: (Score:3)
At RIAA prices of $100,000 per song [riaa.com], that 21 million is a whopping 210 songs, not even enough to fill a 1GB Ipod Nano.
Amount awarded (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this a win for Gordon Reeves and Slysoft? (Score:2)
Oh yeah? (Score:2, Insightful)
Antigua Screwed (Score:2)
Since the ban is still in place, does Antigua get additional damages ongoing, or is the $21M the whole thing now and forever?
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
The above is as relevant to the issue of an unfair practices lawsuit over banking as is the gratuitous insertion of a question about copyright.
If the article can't stand on its own without throwing in an irrelevant hot button, it's not worth polluting the bit stream with it. I can see some such things getting by the editors, but there's so many of them that they must be selecting articles that have these.
Maybe next time I submit an interesting but non-inflammatory article, I should spice it up with an otherwise useless mention of RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft and SCO.
Oh, can I mention SCO, or does their bankruptcy proceedings prevent mentioning them on Slashdot?
Yeah, like that.
Mods notice: This is not a troll, because I mean it.
It may have hurmorous elements (actually, it's sarcasm), but it's not intended to be funny.
It is not flamebait, because it's not intended to elicit flames.
It is in fact a flame itself. There is not mod marker for that.
Mark it overrated if you like, but it's posted in all seriousness because of the lack of journalistic integrity when having same would cost nothing and produce a better publication.
I will go back to banging my head against a brick wall now.
Re: (Score:2)
When you only have $21M to work with (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try it some day. Part of the "relief" provided by the WTO to Antigua is the right to ignore US copyrights (given that international enforcement of copyright laws is based on treaties backed by the WTO, they have the power to do this).
I suspect that anyone in the US downloading mp3s from Antigua will be "shocked" to discover that this only covers people in Antigua, not them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed; if I'm in the US and download an mp3 from an Antiguan server, I'm creating a copy on my PC in the US, in violation of applicable copyright laws. But what if someone sets up a mail order shop in Antigua? Request an album, any album by a US artist, and it gets burned and mailed to you for a dollar. Then the customer hasn't violated anybody's copyright - he has
Aiding and abetting I'm guessing (Score:4, Informative)
It just depends on how bad they want to get you. If they want you bad enough, expect them to pull rabbits out of their hats and aces from their sleeves.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Then how about sell a subscription service where you can stream any song you want anytime you want from Antiguan servers? The songs are stored there, so you're not making a copy. Unless, of course, you copy the stream, or "circumvent" their stringent protections against copying songs directly. Wink wink, nod nod.
Isn't streaming it in effect making a copy though? In RAM if nothing else? I'm not saying that's right or that all streams leave a "copy" on your PC but I can see it being spun that way.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
...that the US (especially the Bush administration) is going to even pay out a measly 21 million dollars a year? There's a certain arrogance on behalf of the US - to pay out on a ruling like this is akin to being pushed around.
Because they have to or face WTO sanctions, that's why.
As if the United States ever cared? We completely ignore the UN, so why not WTO? And it's not like WTO is the only one threatening the US with sanctions; the European Union has put some pressure on the US over this as well since it's sort of a multi billion dollar business over there as well.
The truth is that the current administration has had little concerns over foreign and domestic policy. And if something as utterly important as privacy or habeas corpus is thrown in the garbage, why would they even
Re: (Score:2)
The WTO doesn't work like that. Antigua gets to impose sanctions equivalent to the judgment (in this case, IP sanctions). Basically, Antiguans don't have to pay for music, movies, and software to the tune of $21 million per year.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference being that the US's opponent in the steel case was the EU, whereas in the lumber case it was Canada; European retaliatory sanctions would have hurt. Which doesn't bode too well for Antigua, unless some big players decide to come in on their side. Europe actually might do just that; there are quite a few British gambling sites that would rather like access to the American market.
Then again, it remains to be seen how mu
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Virtual Goods vs. Physical Goods (Score:5, Interesting)
The NYTimes just had an article about how Absinthe was thought to be one of those "kind of questionable things" but the law that made it illegal was overturned as part of a more massive anti-prohibition law. So many people thought it was technically illegal, but in reality it was fine.
Parent