China Slams US Piracy Complaint 346
bingoathome writes with a link to a BBC article on China's criticism of the US over its complaint to the WTO. The Bush administration is breaking its long-standing policy of backroom conversations with Beijing to condemn the country's continued 'failure to address copyright piracy and counterfeiting.' "The US says that China's failure to enforce copyright laws is costing software, music and book publishers billions of dollars in lost sales ... The US has been threatening a WTO complaint against China since 2005. It said on Tuesday that the two cases had been submitted to the WTO. One case claims that Beijing's poor enforcement of copyright and trademark protections violates WTO rules. The other contends that illegal barriers to hamper sales of US films, music and books. "
dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:5, Insightful)
China might as well ignore WTO rulings (Score:5, Insightful)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/02/1
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting how they chose their battles. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmph (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though, is this a surprise to anyone? If China will run over defenseless people with an armored personnel carrier, who would expect them to honor the property rights of people who are not from The Celestial Kingdom?
And if the US' only economic advantage over China is in entertainment, is it surprising that they'd go after this?
What about piracy in the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, seeing the poverty and corruption problems in China, I sure hope that they use their money to make life better for their own citizen, then maybe they can start pumping money into an impossible to achieve goal...
WTO should say (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD Parent UP (Score:5, Insightful)
I always remember when some US official was asked why the US didn't recognise the International court of Justice, he replied "because this would allow other nations to bring trials against OUR leaders". The US just doesn't get the idea of "international cooperation", you can't just use collaboration to get your own way without compromise. Perhaps it would help if the US realised that it isn't always right.
Re:Interesting how they chose their battles. (Score:4, Insightful)
If your 0.49$ screwdriver bends, it is not a disaster, if those brakes you got for a tenth of normal price with no invoice do not work after 50 miles, it can be.
Re:WTO should say (Score:2, Insightful)
The USA's record of obeying WTO rulings that have gone against it is absolutely abysmal.
The fact that they are running to a body that they themselves have made toothless shows that their influence over China has waned to virtually nil.
They've been the only global superpower for close to two decades now, but China and India are very rapidly joining that group and the US is going to have to get used to much, much less going their way.
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:4, Insightful)
there is still money to be made, just don't expect chinese consumers to fork over 15% of their annual income for a lousy hollywood movie
The problem, according to ??AA is that hollywood movies (all lousy at best, as you mentioned) are not necessities, in other words if the Chinese cannot afford them so be it, they shouldn't watch them. And leave it up to us, the "cultured" and "soffisticated" to pay $20 for garbage like that.
I would actually support hollywood cracking down on those who watch their crap and don't pay. Not because I like hollywood but because I hope people will realize that crap like that is really not worth paying for and/or risking a lawsuit and instead invest their money (that $20) in something better. The same goes for Microsoft, let them go after each pirate and remotely disable all of those "suspicious" windows installs. I think the majority of people who pirate windows already realized that the quality of the product they would be getting if they would buy it "fair and square" is not worth the price, and maybe then they'll switch to a free operating system (say Ubuntu) or pay money for a quality product (OS X).
the Injust Trade Barriers - Oh My! (Score:2, Insightful)
And someone else posted about China running over it's own ppl in APCs. Need I mention WACO or Rodney King or how about the recent Blue on Blue incident where the US Air Force with 2 A10s blows the crap out of a British Convoy that had the correct orange markers denoting friendlies?
All this proves though is that we can both relate completely unrelated but similar instances of injustice. We should stick to the topic in question which is trading rights between countries and the effect of piracy efforts.
Not disagreeing with the basic premise (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the real issue here, but it highlights a problem with things like a world court. It is hard to have something like a world government when the world can't agree on what kind of laws it should have. I'm going to guess China has a real different idea of what speech should be criminal than the US does. Thus it is kinda hard to have a single judicial system that both would be under.
Re:MOD Parent UP (Score:5, Insightful)
I think US will be in the position to bully others only for so long. Pretty soon we might have to be the ones taking orders...
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh please, that is a grossly unfair criticism. What exactly are we supposed to do? Declare war on China if they don't legislate improved working conditions?
The WTO exists precisely for the purpose of arbitrating disputes of this sort. The US is following protocol for a legitimate concern.
The US was a great nation (Score:5, Insightful)
Today, the US is what the rest of the "civilized" world is: Fat and afraid. Fat and lazy, unable and unwilling to lift a finger and not caring about tomorrow, not caring what happens to the world around them as long as they can get rich without having to do anything for it. Inventive? At best in the "how to get rich by doing nothing" department.
And afraid that this might change.
Btw, don't feel left out if you're not from the US. That's pretty much true for most of Europe, too. When I look around myself, all I see is fat, lazy and very frightened people.
Re:Apparently RIAA lost hope in people of U.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
Price is not a product of the cost of production. It is a function of the value people see in it. If they don't want to pay the cost of the IP, they don't get it.
The US can't give a foot here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Agriculture? Well, the US has a lot of agriculture, no doubt. Still, it is highly dependent on imports and the exports don't mean a lot (especially with lots of them going to countries that won't ever pay).
Industry? Well, considering that it's way cheaper to produce in the far east, and with Japan and the other Tigers pretty much owning the high tech market (let's shroud the car industry in silence, to protect the guilty), it's not really a big source of foreign money.
Resources? Ever looked at that oil bill alone?
So what's left for exports from the US? Simple: Services and "virtual goods" (IP, content, information, entertainment).
Now, exporting services has a simple problem: You can't ship a haircut around the world. People have to come to your country with their money and spend it there. And if I look at the immigration requirements (even if I promise that I really, really wanna leave again, I wouldn't want to stay there longer than I have to, honestly, I have my ticket here...), I can understand that fewer and fewer people actually want to spend a vacation in a country where the gamble (whether you actually see more of it than a prison cell 'cause you remind someone of someone else) already starts at the airport.
So what's left is virtual property. Content and so on. That's still where the US shines. Movies and music is still a strong export article of the US. Computer programs (Windoze, anyone?), intellectual property and patents held by US corporations...
Imagine what the foreign trade balance would look like if the US backed off here.
A sad commentary on our nation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:4, Insightful)
What Hollywood want, of course, is for governments to enforce copyrights at the taxpayers expense. That doesn't cost them anything, except a little in bribes to make it happen.
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:5, Insightful)
--jeffk++
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno, maybe something slightly less severe, like not making them our "preferred trading partner?" Something along the lines of refusing to trade with countries that don't have some minimum standard of working conditions?
And, yes, I know that means we'd have to pay more for consumer goods. It's still a much less costly option than trying to invade China.
Re:The US was a great nation (Score:1, Insightful)
Speaking as a European, you may be right about fat and lazy, but the fear is just in the USA.
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:2, Insightful)
And, yes, I know that means we'd have to pay more for consumer goods. It's still a much less costly option than trying to invade China.
It is not our business to run around the world ensuring that all workers are treated according to OUR standards, RIGHT NOW. All countries do things differently and for very different reasons. These people work at these wages because it's better than not working at any wages and children in Nike factories would be pretty pissed if their factory was shut down so that *you* could sleep easier at night.
The US went through its own period of poor working conditions, these things will be worked out.
Also remember that the global economy is a delicate organism. Radical changes, such as curtailing US/Chinese trade would be a Bad Thing (of the Great Depression variety). It'd be bad for you, bad for them, pretty much bad for everybody.
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd love to see China come out and say, on the record, "The US has no history of agreeing to WTO decisions, why should we?"
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So when will the US pay *us* back? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem of the Berne convention is not automatic copyright. Automatic copyright protects small and individual producers and allows them to concentrate on creating content instead of being bogged down with formalities. It protects creators from their content being stolen (as in, a draft copy of a book being stolen for example) and published before they could register it and so on.
The real problem is that copyright lasts virtually forever, preventing works from entering the public domain.
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong? No.
Hyprocrites? Yes.
Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:3, Insightful)
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
US response to China's half-hearted enforcement of US Big Media copyrights: OMG! WTF?!! We must complain and protest most vigorously!!!111oneone!
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why Microsoft wants Vista's enhanced DRM capabilities: to cooperate with video producers, and to protect its own software from cheap duplication.
Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise (Score:4, Insightful)
Specifically, your chain of logic fails on its first link: "And, by extension, when state law and federal law conflict, the state's duty is to its citizens, not to some federal community"
There is no "federal community". There is a federal government. And in some matters the state is subordinate to the federal government as spelled out in the US Constitution. And local municipalities are subordinate to states as spelled out in their constitutions. And so on. So your argument is not well thought out.
Additionally, the relationship between state and federal is *not* the same as US and the international community. In the US the relationship between states and the federal govnerment are determined by the US Constitution (well, the interpretation of the Constitution by the Judicial Branch). Our relationship with other countries and the international community as whole are bound by Alliances, Treaties, and Agreements. However, such relationships are superseded by the US Constitution. If a treaty violates or nullifies a portion of the Constitution, that treaty is void in the US.
Re:Not disagreeing with the basic premise (Score:3, Insightful)
And there your chain of logic fails. Local and state governments may indeed have placed themselves in a position of voluntary subservience to the federal government through their constitutions (essentially making them subsidiaries of the federal government), but no such relationship exists between individuals and any level of government. My statement that "when individual morals and local law conflict, the individual's duty is to itself, not to some local community" stands on its own as a parallel of your claim regarding democractic governments (in this case a government of one), and does not depend on the prior two statements. I am willing to admit that the relationship between local, state, and federal governments may be different than my post implied, but my conclusion still stands stands:
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not entirely true. The law does not apply the same way to a convicted and incarcerated prisoner.
'I don't know much about prior US dealings with the WTO, but I do believe laws should be upheld even on behalf of imperfect citizens.'
We aren't talking about someone breaking a code of laws. We are talking about an international organization that exists to resolve disputes between its members. When a member thinks another is acting unfairly they can raise a dispute and all parties have agreed to abide by the decisions of the organization. A member gets the right to raise complaints in exchange for their agreement to abide by decisions. If a member raises complaints but never abides by unfavorable decisions then they really have no right to be a member or to raise issues.
Take the other stance. You are Italy and the US raises an issue against you. Regardless of the merit of the issue you will lose. If the ruling is in your favor, the US will ignore it and possibly take justice in its own hands via sanctions or military action. If you ever have need to raise an issue against the US, the US will ignore any ruling against it. Why should the US be able to enjoy the benefits of favorable decisions if it ignores the consequences of unfavorable ones? Why should any of the other member nations recognize disputes from the US under those circumstances?
I wouldn't.
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US wants this complaint to have weight behind it they need to threaten trade sanctions if China does not follow up.
Re:dvd's cost a quarter in shanghai (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at it this way:
The U.S. continually violates WTO rules. If other countries are also violating WTO rules (even if they are totally stupid), the U.S. will say that they're waiting for the other country to comply.
When the other countries do comply, the U.S. *continues* to not comply. That's two wrongs right there: (1) U.S. benefitting from other countries' compliance, and (2) U.S. benefiting from U.S. noncompliance.
The "let's make sure we're obeying the rules before we hold the U.S. to account" tactic obviously doesn't work, so China is trying a different one. I hope it works.
- RG>
Re:The US can't give a foot here. (Score:3, Insightful)
IP laws are so ridiculous here that they end up slowing down innovation rather than encouraging it. When you have patent hogs that all they do is accumulate overly generalized, broad patents, then sit and wait until someone uses them, then wait some more until 5 or 10 years pass and only then sue! "Oh, gee, we just noticed that, everyone is using a mouse pointing device and we had a patent for it filed in 1971, so we'll just sue the whole world for it and get rich?" I don't really see this modus operandi as being conducive to innovation, it is all just a get rich quick business...