Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Government Media The Internet Politics

WTO Rules on Internet Gambling Case 171

Posted by Zonk
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WTO Rules on Internet Gambling Case

Comments Filter:
  • no (Score:4, Funny)

    by OrangeTide (124937) on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:35PM (#21782168) Homepage Journal

    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?
    IANAL, but don't count on it.
  • Ironclad? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Aren't we assuming that the US would respect the decisions of the WTO in supposing that we'd have a defense against infringement just because of a pesky international law we agreed to?

    Somehow, I don't see that happening. I'm betting the **AA-holes would go after you, anyhow.
    • by sumdumass (711423)
      How would the RIAA go after you? None of the copyright laws right now pertain to getting something. IT is all with copying and distributing. And no, when someone offers something to you, you aren't copying it illegally when downloading it.

      The RIAA could only come after you with anything that actually had grounds for if you took whatever you got and then gave it away or they manage to use this to get a law passed making downloading in and of itself illegal.
      • IT is all with copying and distributing. And no, when someone offers something to you, you aren't copying it illegally when downloading it.

        Yes you are, if it's not the copyright holder or someone authorized by him, who is permitting it. Downloaders infringe by reproducing works in copies, uploaders infringe by distributing (well, really by publicly performing or displaying, but this relatively minor technical issue hasn't been corrected yet, and usually doesn't matter).
  • by darthfracas (1144839) on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:37PM (#21782210)
    can't wait for the current administration to take its ball and go home because people can do what they want with their money. Bill Frist got the provision into the port security bill for two reasons... 1)he knew it would pass no matter what was in it, and 2)Harrah's is one of his largest donors. translation, "play poker in our card rooms, or you can't play at all."
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Best ID Ever! (712255)
      Except that Harrah's is pro online gambling. Most of the major casinos want to extend their brand online.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sm62704 (957197)
      What I can't figure out is why the federal government is involved with gambling. Gambling is legal in many states; we have horse tracks and casinos here in Illinois.

      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
      • by Belial6 (794905)
        I'm pretty sure that hookers are illegal in Las Vegas. They are not illegal in Nevada, but my understanding was that the cities had laws against prostitution in the city itself.

        And yes, slot machines are a tactile experience. Without the hand to pull, and the coins dropping out, I might as well sit at home pushing my spacebar.
        • by stfvon007 (632997)
          Prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas and Reno. It is legal everywhere else in the state as far as I know.
        • A better way to put it is, hookers are "illegal" in Las Vegas.

          You can't walk two feet without some poor guy flipping cards with hot girls numbers who will come to your hotel room for a private show.
      • The ban relates to money being transfered offshore. It has nothing to do with gambling on US soil.
        • It applies to all "illegal online gambling", US or otherwise.
          • No, it applies to the offshore transfer of money to casinos. It has nothing to do with the legality of gambling.
            • Here is the text itself [govtrack.us] (at the end of the safe ports act). It says nothing about "offshore" transfers. It applies to transfers for all instra-state illegal gambling. It doesn't specify what is illegal, it simply defers to current law.
              • The last section is called "INTERNET GAMBLING IN OR THROUGH FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS".

                But after reading the whole thing, I don't understand how this shut down all offshore financial transfers related to gambling. Every company I knew of (both online casinos and simple transaction services that affiliated with them) declared that dealing with US citizens was now illegal due to this act. I'm confused.
                • The act essentially did two things:
                  1) Made it illegal for anyone to accept a deposit to be used for illegal gambling
                  2) Required bank regulations to be drafted to stop such deposits from being transferred

                  So if someone is breaking the law by gambling at your site, then you are breaking the law by accepting their deposit.

                  Whether or not someone is gambling illegally is difficult to determine, given the patchwork of state laws and unclear applicability of the Wire Act, so everyone who wants to stay within the l
                  • Thanks a lot for the explanation. I had been using an offshore casino and an offshore financial transfer company. So my guess, based on your explanation, would be they were afraid of the new legal implications of this act due to the old Wire Act that (potentially) made the online gambling illegal.

                    Thanks again.
      • by sumdumass (711423) on Friday December 21, 2007 @05:00PM (#21784328) Journal
        The federal government is involved because it deals with interstate commerce. And it does so in a way that can circumvent the different state's existing laws. Currently, gambling is handled state by state. But when you make it available in a state that banns it, you are violating that states laws accept you haven't entered that state to be punished. The Feds put a thing in the wire something laws making it illegal to do something like this. Later, they banned the transfer of funds to illegal gambling so that residents of Ohio couldn't go on line and gamble in Nevada. Now, you actually have to go where the gambling is legal if you want to gamble.

        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.
      • I prefer Las Vegas casinos, though, because hookers are legal.
        You might find that the police in LV have a different idea about that.. you'd need to leave the city limits.

        Or so I've heard.
    • LULZ AT YOU (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What kind of moron would even think about gambling online out of Antigua or anywhere outside the USA for that matter?

      A simple google search of 'online gambling scheme' [google.com] reveales a ton of scams involving thousands of crooks internationally. In the USA there are not as nearly as many schemes as everything is regulated very heavily and almost every scheme is caught in the end. When gambling online you not only have to worry about the odds of the house, but the odds of a cheater taking everyones money; lowering
  • nahhh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by superwiz (655733) on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:37PM (#21782212) Journal
    It's a token victory. It just means that that if they do sell mp3 without paying royalties, US won't be able to use WTO to impose sanctions on them. But US doesn't need WTO to impose sanctions. It can just do it. I am not a lawyer.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Necrotica (241109)
      It's a token victory. It just means that that if they do sell mp3 without paying royalties, US won't be able to use WTO to impose sanctions on them. But US doesn't need WTO to impose sanctions. It can just do it. I am not a lawyer.

      "Can" implies legal right. But make no mistake, the US WILL just do it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Hatta (162192)
        No, "may" implies legal right. "Can" merely implies capability. "Will" implies certainty, which is a little premature right now.
    • Re:nahhh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by meringuoid (568297) on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:48PM (#21782406)
      It's a token victory. It just means that that if they do sell mp3 without paying royalties, US won't be able to use WTO to impose sanctions on them. But US doesn't need WTO to impose sanctions. It can just do it.

      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.

      • ...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.

        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

        • Would it imply an escalating tarrif war? Europe/Japan wouldn't risk playing that card for a fight that's not even theirs. No way do they break out the economic 'nuclear option' in defense of Antigua when they would be harmed as much as the US.

          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)

        by jedidiah (1196) on Friday December 21, 2007 @03:11PM (#21782678) Homepage
        You are deepling confused.

        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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Actually, you are wrong. The problem is that the US allows some local online gambling, while not allowing the same to outside countries. If the US was to actually ban all forms of online gambling,it would be ok. What they cannot do, is to discriminate against other countries like they do with Antigua.
          • by javelinco (652113)

            What they cannot do, is to discriminate against other countries like they do with Antigua.
            They CAN'T? Where is this written, and how is it enforced? And why doesn't it apply universally - cause I sure hope you understand that it does NOT apply to all similar situations, and to other countries outside the United States....
          • by sumdumass (711423)
            I don't understand where this ban is. All countries like antigua need to do is get permission in each state they wish to operate in just like every one else who want to operate on line and regular casinos.

            I'm not sure why that isn't acceptable. They can compete in each market within the US that allows competition.
        • Re:nahhh (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mi (197448) on Friday December 21, 2007 @03:57PM (#21783332) Homepage

          The same goes for other forms of "vice" like alcohol or sex. Try talking to a small US vineyard trying to sell to customers in other States.

          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.

        • Re:nahhh (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Best ID Ever! (712255) on Friday December 21, 2007 @04:18PM (#21783672)

          Try talking to a small US vineyard trying to sell to customers in other States.

          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.
        • by bigdavex (155746)

          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".

          For this explanation to work, we have to buy that someone really believes that betting on horse races and lotteries is more moral than betting on sports, poker, or roulette. And that's a pretty tough sell to anyone wit

        • Moral-majority nonsense is part of it, but it's also no accident that U.S.-based casinos were among the bill's biggest proponents, and casino-money-taking representatives were the ones who pushed it. One of the bill's main purposes is to protect American gambling corporations from internet-based and foreign 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.

        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

    • by jrumney (197329)
      If the US unilaterally imposes sanctions because they don't like the WTO's ruling, then the WTO will just keep increasing the punishment.
    • by sethstorm (512897) *

      But US doesn't need WTO to impose sanctions. It can just do it.
      They could always just take over the country.
  • by Speare (84249) on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:38PM (#21782240) Homepage Journal

    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?

    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.

    • 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.

      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

      • by Bartab (233395)
        The bandwidth costs would be high, so it would have to be subscription-only. A well-resourced adversary might be able to follow the money, but small Caribbean island nations tend to be discreet about such things.

        If it was so easy to get money to them, then they wouldn't care about the law -now-. Antiguan companies don't care that they're breaking US law by allowing American citizens to gamble (the citizens themselves are not breaking the law), they care that the law has made it harder for these citizens to
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by geminidomino (614729) *
      Yeah, but what we may see is a resurgence of the old HTTP/NNTP/FTP warez servers hosted in Antigua, which would cause problems to the MAFIAA's method of abusing the system by claiming that P2P services include "making available"....
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SEE (7681)

      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

    • by Hatta (162192)
      I'm no expert on international law, but what law would I be breaking if I downloaded royalty free MP3s from antigua? Or to start a little simpler, what if someone went to antigua, burned a bunch of physical copies of discs, and sent them to me? AFAIK, copyright law merely restricts the activity of copying. Since the copying is done in Antigua where it's legal, US law won't apply. I don't know of any law against possessing or shipping unlicensed copies, so importation of the copy should be legal too. I w
      • by XanC (644172)
        Interesting thought... And therefore, would the RIAA/MPAA have to prove that somebody's unlicensed copy was not made in Antigua?
      • Assuming you're in the US, it would be illegal.

        International law is irrelevant; all that would matter here would be US copyright law, which governs what occurs in the US. (The Antiguans fall under Antiguan law, which would protect them in this matter, but not you)

        Copyright applies to a number of different activities, but the two that are relevant here are reproduction and public distribution. Reproduction is the creation of a copy, and public distribution is the transfer of ownership or possession of a copy
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:51PM (#21782436)

    The office of the U.S. Trade Representative noted that Antigua was seeking sanctions worth more than three times the size of its entire economy.

    "Antigua's claim was patently excessive," it said in a statement. "The United States is pleased that the figure arrived at by the arbitrator is over 100 times lower than Antigua's claim."


    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.
    • This is simply the US trying to protect the tax revenue generated by the domestic gambling industry.

      There, fixed that for you.
  • I dunno... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Otter (3800)
    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?

    Sorry, I only trust idiotic legal theories from New York Country Lawyer has weighed in to endorse them.

  • Um, What?... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:54PM (#21782486)
    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?

    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 /. made the connection clear so this statement didn't come completely out of left field...
    • The relevant rule here is that the WTO can award damages, and one way they can do that is to allow Antigua to ignore US IP laws up to a certain value.
    • by ArhcAngel (247594)
      It's a pork barrel comment appended to an actual story.

      You must be new here.

      • Incorrect, in cases such as these rather than fining the country in question, one form of restitution is to allow the winning country (Antigua) to "take payment" in the form of ignoring copyrights of the losing country (US) up to a certain value. This is a broad summary of this practice, you'll have to look up details on your own time. ;)
    • Antigua knew they could not really sanction the US in this dispute. The US illegally (as ruled now by the WTO) cut the ability for gamblers to play online abroad, while still allowing online play inside its borders, a clear cut protectionism. As retaliation, Antigua asked the WTO to clear them for copyright infringement on US products up to the value of $3 billions. The panel ruled for a smaller value of $21 Millions/year, but it still means that Antigua can legally infringe US copyrights and service up to
      • Meh. My understanding of this is that Antigua would merely be relieved of its obligations to the US pursuant to TRIPS et al up to the limit awarded.

        Remember, copyright is a national system, not an international one. There is no such thing as an international copyright. Rather, there are US copyrights, UK copyrights, Canadian copyrights, etc. Most countries are members of various treaties that state that when one member grants a copyright, the other members will also grant a copyright to the same applicant.
  • by EOG.com (1206452) on Friday December 21, 2007 @02:59PM (#21782542)
    From Eye On Gambling http://www.eog.com/ [eog.com]

    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."
    • "US $21 million a year in intellectual property rights suspension going forward indefinitely is not such a bad asset to have."

      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.

    • Where are they going to sell their $21 million in annual IP infringement? The US will almost certainly attempt to bully potential customers of Antiguan copies of American DVDs into not buying. Is the local demand in Antigua for US copyrighted goods equal to $21 million per year? Maybe, but they will probably have some trouble trying to sell these warez outside of Antigua.
  • Weird. They recognize the US is guilty but they just fine ? US infringement on the right of Antigua's casino is a continuous process but it looks like they're paying a one time fine. Wtf ?
  • Just curious...it seems that the decision about suspension of copyright and other IP rights might flow to the encryption "protecting" such rights.
  • Oh yeah? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RandoX (828285)
    In other news, the White House has released a statement demanding that Antigua halt its WMD programs...
  • Antigua was screwed by this decision. The arbitrators should all be investigated for receiving payoffs or other compensation to make such an unfair ruling. And after the investigation, they should all be jailed!

    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)

    by DynaSoar (714234) on Friday December 21, 2007 @03:39PM (#21783050) Journal
    It's all because of Microsoft, so I for one welcome our new goat overlords because in Soviet Russia Linux runs YOU.

    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.

    • by Rary (566291)
      I agree with the gist of what you're saying, and I, too, was puzzled and annoyed at first by the addition of the RIAA comment, however the article does actually mention that Antigua and Barbuda were essentially awarded the right to violate U.S. copyrights in retaliation, so it is actually relevant. It's still pretty obvious flamebait, though.
    • by DynaSoar (714234)
      To the moderator who heeded my plea: thank you for the -1 overrated rather than something irrelevant.
    • is that the type of mod you were going for?
  • When you only have $21M/year to work with, I'd recommend targeting it towards the single company, or two, who have the most to lose and will squeal the loudest at the US government for allowing this to happen. Don't spread it around so much that nobody feels your pain!
  • I can just see a Happy Birthday song industry starting up there now. People will go on vacation there to sing Happy Birthday to their loved ones.
  • a law that forbids banks from handling money to and from online casinos. [...] 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?"

    What does this WTO decision have to do with the Antigua case for immunity from US copyright laws? I don't see where Antigua's copyright case is affected by this ruling.

    However, since the US is reacting to losing the gambling case by revising the US rules for compliance with

The person who's taking you to lunch has no intention of paying.

Working...